Re: Buggy WNRO fixup
Please try git head. I fixed my test case. -- These are my opinions. I hate spam. ___ devel mailing list devel@ntpsec.org https://lists.ntpsec.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Buggy WNRO fixup
> A capture of the raw NMEA would be helpful. But don't work too hard on it. I have a test case. Fix soon. -- These are my opinions. I hate spam. ___ devel mailing list devel@ntpsec.org https://lists.ntpsec.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Buggy WNRO fixup
Yo Udo! A capture of the raw NMEA would be helpful. On Sat, 12 Feb 2022 06:52:47 +0100 Udo van den Heuvel via devel wrote: > On 12-02-2022 06:45, Hal Murray wrote: > > > > devel@ntpsec.org said: > >> Is this an effect? I get loads of these: > >> Feb 6 00:00:28 srfplnk2 ntpd[510014]: REFCLOCK: NMEA(0) date > >> advanced by 0 weeks, WNRO > > > > That's a bug. Looks like it's alternating between 0 and 1024. > > > > Which sentence(s) are you using? What's your server line? (the > > mode part) I'm guessing you don't have one. Try adding "mode 1" > > > > > > Thanks for the report. > > ##NMEA zonder PPS > refclock nmea unit 0 mode 7 flag3 1 flag2 0 flag1 0 time1 0.0006 > time2 0.260 baud 4800 > # > ## PPS van dezelfde NMEA GPS > refclock pps unit 0 flag2 0 > > # vuurmuur > server 192.168.10.98 minpoll 4 iburst > > > Udo > ___ > devel mailing list > devel@ntpsec.org > https://lists.ntpsec.org/mailman/listinfo/devel RGDS GARY --- Gary E. Miller Rellim 109 NW Wilmington Ave., Suite E, Bend, OR 97703 g...@rellim.com Tel:+1 541 382 8588 Veritas liberabit vos. -- Quid est veritas? "If you can't measure it, you can't improve it." - Lord Kelvin pgplrFIIqFXwM.pgp Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ devel mailing list devel@ntpsec.org https://lists.ntpsec.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Buggy WNRO fixup
On 12-02-2022 06:45, Hal Murray wrote: devel@ntpsec.org said: Is this an effect? I get loads of these: Feb 6 00:00:28 srfplnk2 ntpd[510014]: REFCLOCK: NMEA(0) date advanced by 0 weeks, WNRO That's a bug. Looks like it's alternating between 0 and 1024. Which sentence(s) are you using? What's your server line? (the mode part) I'm guessing you don't have one. Try adding "mode 1" Thanks for the report. ##NMEA zonder PPS refclock nmea unit 0 mode 7 flag3 1 flag2 0 flag1 0 time1 0.0006 time2 0.260 baud 4800 # ## PPS van dezelfde NMEA GPS refclock pps unit 0 flag2 0 # vuurmuur server 192.168.10.98 minpoll 4 iburst Udo ___ devel mailing list devel@ntpsec.org https://lists.ntpsec.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Buggy WNRO fixup
devel@ntpsec.org said: > Is this an effect? I get loads of these: > Feb 6 00:00:28 srfplnk2 ntpd[510014]: REFCLOCK: NMEA(0) date advanced by 0 > weeks, WNRO That's a bug. Looks like it's alternating between 0 and 1024. Which sentence(s) are you using? What's your server line? (the mode part) I'm guessing you don't have one. Try adding "mode 1" Thanks for the report. -- These are my opinions. I hate spam. ___ devel mailing list devel@ntpsec.org https://lists.ntpsec.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Buggy WNRO fixup
On 20-12-2021 21:51, Hal Murray via devel wrote: I have a NMEA unit that's off by 1024 weeks. Somebody is fixing it twice. Anybody know where that fixup code is located? I took a quick scan in the NMEA driver but didn't find it. Is this an effect? I get loads of these: Feb 6 00:00:28 srfplnk2 ntpd[510014]: REFCLOCK: NMEA(0) date advanced by 0 weeks, WNRO Feb 6 00:00:29 srfplnk2 ntpd[510014]: REFCLOCK: NMEA(0) date advanced by 1024 weeks, WNRO Feb 6 00:00:29 srfplnk2 ntpd[510014]: REFCLOCK: NMEA(0) date advanced by 0 weeks, WNRO Feb 6 00:00:30 srfplnk2 ntpd[510014]: REFCLOCK: NMEA(0) date advanced by 1024 weeks, WNRO Feb 6 00:00:30 srfplnk2 ntpd[510014]: REFCLOCK: NMEA(0) date advanced by 0 weeks, WNRO Feb 6 00:00:31 srfplnk2 ntpd[510014]: REFCLOCK: NMEA(0) date advanced by 1024 weeks, WNRO Udo ___ devel mailing list devel@ntpsec.org https://lists.ntpsec.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
