On Mon, Mar 09, 2020 at 11:55:05AM +0100, Jiri Benc wrote:
> On Fri, 6 Mar 2020 11:23:00 -0800, Richard Cochran wrote:
> > +int phc_number_pins(clockid_t clkid)
> > +{
> > + struct ptp_clock_caps caps;
> > +
> > + if (phc_get_caps(clkid, &caps)) {
> > + return 0;
> > + }
> > +#ifdef HAVE_PIN_SETFUNC
> > + return caps.n_pins;
This is the issue ^^^
> It would be better to detect this at run time instead, allowing
> linuxptp to use the best interface dynamically without recompiling. It
> seems to be doable, the old kernels return -ENOTTY for unknown commands.
Yes, and I agree with your sentiment, but that requires carrying an
out-of-tree 'struct ptp_clock_caps' in missing.h. So far we have
avoided this, and I didn't want to start now.
But maybe that wouldn't be worst thing in the world. There is a trade
off between maintaining parallel copies of ptp_clock_caps and the
convenience of compiling the stack just once with the "future" kernel
definitions.
Thoughts?
Thanks,
Richard
_______________________________________________
Linuxptp-devel mailing list
Linuxptp-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linuxptp-devel
