[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [gpsd-dev] [PATCH] Time Service HOWTO: Clarify state of RFC2783 on N

From: Gary E. Miller
Subject: Re: [gpsd-dev] [PATCH] Time Service HOWTO: Clarify state of RFC2783 on NetBSD.
Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2014 12:55:28 -0700

Yo Greg!

On Tue, 26 Aug 2014 15:49:21 -0400
Greg Troxel <address@hidden> wrote:

> "Gary E. Miller" <address@hidden> writes:
> > Yo Greg!
> >
> > On Tue, 26 Aug 2014 08:46:16 -0400
> > Greg Troxel <address@hidden> wrote:
> >
> >> Note that RFC2783 support on serial is ancient, and works with
> >> ntpd, but that gpsd's PPS code does not work with it.   Note the
> >> addition of USB-serial RFC2783 support in NetBSD 7.
> >> 
> >> Add a missing "Linux" qualifier in discussion of Linux KPPS.
> >
> > I disagree with that addition of Linux to KPPS.  More than Linux
> > implements RFC2783.
> The paragraph where I added Linux was about Linux.  Yes, RFC2783
> works on other places.  But it's not "KPPS", which is a Linux-specific
> term.   Arguably this should be restructured to explain in terms of
> standards and then per-OS how to configure the system to provide it,
> and then I think we'd both be ok with it.

KPPS is not a Linux specifc term.  It is a gps specific term to 
refer to RFC2783.  When we said RFC2783 people did not understand
what we meant.

> > As you note NetBSD has added their own RFC2783, finally.
> That's not correct.  NetBSD has had RFC2783 support (really, a late
> version of the internet draft the became RFC2783) since about 1999.
> The only recent change was to hook it into usb-serial devices.  

So, we agree, added lately.  At least for gpsd purposes.

> > Sadly RFC2783 does not specify the entire API.  If NetBSD needs some
> > tweaks let us fix gpsd, not document that we gave up.
> I don't follow.   RFC2783 does specify an API.

I thought that was what I just said.

> Reading the gpsd
> code, it seems to make extra assumptions beyond the API,

As you said RFC2783 does not specify an API, so assumptions (reverse 
engineering) is required to make it work.  NetBSD just made different
assumptions to complete what RFC2783 mmissed.

> which makes
> it not work.

Works for me.

>  So certainly we should fix it -- my comment was meant
> to note that it does not work, not that it never will.  Perhaps that
> should be clearer.

How about we skip the doc change, and just add to the TODO?

Gary E. Miller Rellim 109 NW Wilmington Ave., Suite E, Bend, OR 97701
        address@hidden  Tel:+1(541)382-8588

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]