On Monday, 19 October 2020, 19:46:17 CEST, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 19, 2020 at 07:24:34PM +0200, Christian Eggers wrote:
> > static int ksz9477_ptp_enable(struct ptp_clock_info *ptp, struct
> > ptp_clock_request *req, int on) {
> >
> > - return -ENOTTY;
> > + struct ksz_device *dev = container_of(ptp, struct ksz_device, ptp_caps);
> > + int ret;
> > +
> > + switch (req->type) {
> > + case PTP_CLK_REQ_PPS:
> > + mutex_lock(&dev->ptp_mutex);
> > + ret = ksz9477_ptp_enable_pps(dev, on);
> > + mutex_unlock(&dev->ptp_mutex);
> > + return ret;
> > + default:
> > + return -EINVAL;
> > + }
> > +
> > + return 0;
> >
> > }
>
> Nope, this is not what you're looking for. Please implement
> PTP_CLK_REQ_PEROUT.
Are you sure? I have implemented both (see patch 9/9). I cannot see that the
PTP_ENABLE_PPS(2) ioctls are translated into PTP_CLK_REQ_PEROUT.
PTP_CLK_REQ_PEROUT is also called in pps_enable_store().
regards
Christian
