Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 21 Nov 2010 04:05:31 +0300 | From | Alexander Gordeev <> | Subject | Re: [PATCHv4 13/17] ntp: add hardpps implementation |
| |
В Sat, 20 Nov 2010 17:27:18 +0100 Rodolfo Giometti <giometti@enneenne.com> пишет:
> On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 07:01:06PM +0300, Alexander Gordeev wrote: > > This commit adds hardpps() implementation based upon the original one > > from the NTPv4 reference kernel code from David Mills. However, it is > > highly optimized towards very fast syncronization and maximum stickness > > to PPS signal. The typical error is less then a microsecond. > > To make it sync faster I had to throw away exponential phase filter so > > that the full phase offset is corrected immediately. Then I also had to > > throw away median phase filter because it gives a bigger error itself > > if used without exponential filter. > > Maybe we will find an appropriate filtering scheme in the future but > > it's not necessary if the signal quality is ok. > > This patch (and follows) adds a new functionality to PPS subsystem, so > let me suggest to you splitting in two parts this patch set: a first > patch set who fixes up the current PPS implementation, and a second > patch set who adds kernel consumer (and follows).
But the patches that add hardpps and parport client+generator depend on the previous ones because the latter change lots of things in PPS subsystem. I don't want to maintain them separately because we use all of them in the production.
However I can tell here that it'll be ok for me if not all the patches enter mainline at the same time. For example, patches 1-3 are already ACKed and are actually bugfixes (patch 2 is trivial and patch 3 depends on it) so I think they could be merged in the next rc. I placed them in the beginning exactly for this reason. Whom should I mail them?
Same thing with other patches. Smaller patchset -> me (and probably users) more happy. :)
-- Alexander [unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature] | |