On Sun, Aug 30, 2020 at 12:21:49AM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote: > A potentially relevant question to be asked is if we're ok with the lack > of backwards compatibility here.
The program ought to still work with the older interface. > The program used to be a passive observer of "ts2phc.pulsewidth", but > now it tries to program that value into the kernel. Obviously, with PHC > masters that don't support that operation, this will fail. Hm, I tried this series with my i210 cards (which don't have the new interface) and it seemed to work just fine. I didn't get that far into the review, but I did see this: + /* + * We use a default value of -1 to distinguish whether + * to use the PTP_PEROUT_PHASE API or not. But if we + * don't use that (and therefore we use absolute start + * time), the phase is still zero, by our application's + * convention. + */ I think it would be better to simply try the new API, and if it fails, then fall back to the older API. Thanks, Richard _______________________________________________ Linuxptp-devel mailing list Linuxptp-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linuxptp-devel
