Rodolfo Giometti wrote: > On Wed, Nov 22, 2006 at 05:04:36PM +0100, Rodolfo Giometti wrote: > >> I'd like submit my LinuxPPS implementation to Linux main tree but >> before I have to fix some issues about RFC specifications. >> >> The RFC 2783 says that «pps_handle_t type is an opaque scalar type >> used to represent a PPS source within the API» but in my >> implementation I intentionally want to separate the concept of file >> descriptor to the concept of the PPS source since some devices do not >> have such association (some devices are directly connected to a >> dedicated interrupt line for example), and to support this I need a >> struct as "pps_handle_t". >> >> If the GPS receiver is connected to a serial line then everything >> works well but, if this is not true, we have no "filedes" to pass to >> the function time_pps_create(). That's why I also added a new function >> time_pps_findsource() in order to find a generic PPS source (note that >> this function is protected by the PPS_HAVE_FINDSOURCE define). >> >> So, my opinion is that RFC 2783 should say that «pps_handle_t type is >> an opaque __variable__ used to represent a PPS source within the API» >> and programs should not access to it directly due its opacity. >> >> I'd like to know if this is the right place to discuss about this >> topic or if I should post my message elsewhere. > > I'd like to know if the questions above are off-topic on this list > since I still received no answers. :'( > > If they are so, please suggest to me the right place where I should > send them. >
The IETF NTP working group ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) might be one place but I don't know if it will handle PPS specifically. Danny > Regards, > > Rodolfo > _______________________________________________ questions mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ntp.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/questions
