[ntp:questions] [LinuxPPS] Regarding RFC2783 modifications

Danny Mayer mayer at ntp.isc.org
Fri Dec 8 03:41:24 UTC 2006

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 (ntpwg at ntp.isc.org) might be one place but I
don't know if it will handle PPS specifically.


> Regards,
> Rodolfo

More information about the questions mailing list