On Fri, Nov 13, 2020 at 04:53:11AM +0200, Vladimir Oltean wrote: > Richard, do you think we can clarify the intended usage of PTP_CLK_REQ_PPS > in the documentation? It doesn't appear to be written anywhere that > PTP_ENABLE_PPS is supposed to enable event generation for the drivers/pps > subsystem. You would sort of have to know before you could find out... Yes, please! The poor naming is a source of eternal confusion. I think that the "hard pps" thing from NTP is not used very often, maybe never, but I didn't know that when I first drafted the whole PHC subsystem. Naturally developers of PHC device drivers think that this the PPS that they need to implement. After all, the name matches! (Actually, at the time I thought that this would be the way to synchronize the system clock to the PHC, but it turned out that Miroslav's generic method in phc2sys worked very well, and so the hard pps thing has little, if any, practical value.) The documentation is vague, yes, but I think even more important would be to remove the word PPS from the C-language identifiers. I'm open to suggestions/patches on this... Thanks, Richard
