On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 03:38:28AM +0000, Y.b. Lu wrote:
> May I confirm that we don't have to use new clock types for PTP End Instance
> and PTP Relay Instance?
> PTP End Instance should be OC tyoe,
The end instance is already implemented. Why change it now?
> and PTP Relay Instance should be developed based on BC?
>
> I had a slovenly PRI/TAB implementation based on P2P TC. If so, I need to
> rework the implementation based on BC, and clean up code before sending out
> for review.
You have two choices:
1. invent a new clock_type with its own .c and .h file
2. adapt one of the existing clock_types
The correct choice depends on the nature of the changes needed. On
the one hand, if all that is needed is a one-liner, then #2 is the
obvious choice. On the other hand, if the changes mean sprinkling
if (my_special_case) { do_my_special_stuff(); }
everywhere, then #1 makes sense.
In any case, it is hard to guess without seeing your code. Why not
post what you have done already as an RFC?
Thanks,
Richard
_______________________________________________
Linuxptp-devel mailing list
Linuxptp-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linuxptp-devel
