I would rather have this check in the ptp core, because it wouldn't rely on drivers doing it, and we'd only have to code it in one place.
On Wed, 2014-03-26 at 08:57 +0100, Mohamed Belaouad wrote: > I agree with you. Either that or the drivers could return an error in such a > case. > > Best Regards, > Mohamed > > ----- Mail original ----- > > On Tue, 2014-03-25 at 15:29 +0100, Richard Cochran wrote: > > > On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 02:38:29PM +0100, Mohamed Belaouad wrote: > > > > > > > Considering that the drivers sets the max adj to 62,500,000, I > > > > should be able to set the ppb ajustment up/down to -+62,500,000 from > > > > my understanding. > > > > > > Yes, that is correct. > > > > > > > However, when printing the value passed to the driver with testptp I > > > > get: > > > > Value passed to testptp | Value printed at the entry of the driver > > > > function > > > > > +32,768,000 | -32,768,000 > > > > < -32,768,000 | -32,768,000 > > > > > > I guess you are on a 32 bit platform. In that case, the size of the > > > adjustment is limited by the timex.freq field. See linuxptp/phc.c. > > > > > > > Please excuse me if it is a misunderstanding on my part. > > > > > > I thought you meant that the kernel should check that the dialed > > > frequency offset is within the bounds of [-max_adj, +max_adj]. > > > That is a different issue. > > > > > > > I think that change to the kernel would be a good thing, since most > > drivers assume that the value passed to them is within range. > > > > Regards, > > Jake > > > > > Thanks, > > > Richard > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Linuxptp-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linuxptp-users
