On Wed, 26 Jul 2023 at 04:39, Richard Cochran <richardcoch...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 04, 2023 at 12:30:38PM +0200, Stephan Wurm wrote:
>
> > diff --git a/fsm.h b/fsm.h
> > index 857af05..919e934 100644
> > --- a/fsm.h
> > +++ b/fsm.h
> > @@ -31,6 +31,7 @@ enum port_state {
> > PS_PASSIVE,
> > PS_UNCALIBRATED,
> > PS_SLAVE,
> > + PS_PASSIVE_SLAVE, /*according to IEC 62439-3 doubly attached
> clocks*/
>
> NAK. There is no such state in IEEE 1588.
>
I Wonder, I thought we already excluded this 2 month ago. :-(
>
> > PS_GRAND_MASTER, /*non-standard extension*/
> > };
> >
> > @@ -53,6 +54,7 @@ enum fsm_event {
> > EV_RS_GRAND_MASTER,
> > EV_RS_SLAVE,
> > EV_RS_PASSIVE,
> > + EV_RS_PSLAVE, /*according to IEC 62439-3 doubly attached clocks*/
>
> There is no such recommended state event.
>
> If you "profile" invents a new BMCA, then you should implement it
> explictily.
>
> We have ptp_fsm() and ptp_slave_fsm(), and you really should add
> ptp_iec_whatevet_fsm() rather than hacking in specialy cases to the
> 1588 state machines.
>
> Thanks,
> Richard
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Linuxptp-devel mailing list
> Linuxptp-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linuxptp-devel
>
_______________________________________________
Linuxptp-devel mailing list
Linuxptp-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linuxptp-devel
