>> Using the term PLL. > But that's how the code is organized. In the absence of a PLL it doesn't > slew. Or am I missing something here?
(at least) One of us is confused. The text from the blog: > There are two kinds of NTP hosts; one uses a kernel facility known as the > "PLL" for doing fine adjustments to the tick speed of the system clock, the > other kind does not. That just seems wrong. There is no PLL involved with slewing a clock. Do you have a reference for that terminology? There may be confusion introduced from gpsd. I think they have misused the term PLL in that sort of way. If you had said something like: There are two kinds of NTP hosts; one which makes small adjustments by slewing the clock, the other kind does not. Then I would have been happy. I'd like to understand why slew or not has significant impact on the code path and/or TESTFRAME. ------ There is a PLL in the kernel that runs off PPS. It's not in the default kernels shipped with most Linux distros because they all use noHz and the PPS/PLL doesn't work with that. That would be a major shift in the code path. When the kernel PPS/PLL is active, ntpd mostly just sits off to the side and watches. That's an important path if you want super-good time, but TESTFRAME would have been a success if it didn't support that. -- These are my opinions. I hate spam. _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@ntpsec.org http://lists.ntpsec.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
