Re: [Linuxptp-users] HWTSTAMP_TX_ONESTEP_SYNC vs HWTSTAMP_TX_ON

[Keller, J. E <jac...@in...>]

On Mon, 2013-07-29 at 13:12 +0200, Richard Cochran wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 08:51:58AM +0000, Ledda William EXT wrote:
> 
> > My question is: which is the real difference between HWTSTAMP_TX_ON
> > and HWTSTAMP_TX_ONESTEP_SYNC? I mean, what problems could I have if
> > I use a modified version without the HWTSTAMP_TX_ONESTEP_SYNC
> > support?
> 
> This is just a number passed in the tx_type field of the SIOCSHWTSTAMP
> ioctl. It is only used if you set configuration option "twoStepFlag"
> to false. So there is no harm in defining it in EXTRA_CFLAGS or in
> missing.h.
> 
> Thanks,
> Richard

If I have a bit of time later today I think I will submit a patch on
missing.h to add it, since a proper driver implementation should return
invalid if onestep is not supported.

- Jake