>> @@ -100,6 +113,12 @@ double servo_sample(struct servo *servo,
>>
>> if (*state != SERVO_UNLOCKED)
>> servo->first_update = 0;
>> + else
>> + servo->curr_offset_values = servo->num_offset_values;
>> +
>> + if (*state == SERVO_LOCKED && check_offset_threshold(servo, offset)) {
>> + *state = SERVO_LOCKED_STABLE;
>> + }
>
> This is getting hard to follow. Time for switch/case(*state) with all the
> cases listed explicitly.
>
After pondering a little bit more, I think that switch/case is not suitable in
this scenario. The current we switch/case is implemented is as follows:
switch (*state) {
case SERVO_UNLOCKED:
servo->curr_offset_values = servo->num_offset_values;
break;
case SERVO_LOCKED:
if (check_offset_threshold(servo, offset)) {
*state = SERVO_LOCKED_STABLE;
}
/* fall through. */
case SERVO_JUMP:
servo->first_update = 0;
break;
case SERVO_LOCKED_STABLE:
break;
}
But, here SERVO_LOCKED_STABLE case will never occur. Also, if we decide to move
out the check_offset_threshold() check outside the switch case so that
SERVO_LOCKED_STABLE case is able to execute, the "servo->curr_offset_values =
servo->num_offset_values;” should also be done before that whenever we reset
the state and state is moved to SERVO_UNLOCKED. So, there is a lot of
interdependency within the code in this switch-case statement and it will
probably be cleaner to keep it as if-else.
Thanks,
Vedang
> Thanks,
> Richard
_______________________________________________
Linuxptp-devel mailing list
Linuxptp-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linuxptp-devel
