On Mon, May 13, 2024 at 02:18:49PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Mon, May 13, 2024 at 04:08:11PM +0530, lakshmi.sowjany...@intel.com wrote:
> > + pps_tio_disable(tio); > > This... > > + tio->enabled = false; > > ...and this should go together, which makes me look at the enabled flag over > the code and it seems there are a few places where you missed to sync it with > the reality. > > I would think of something like this: > > pps_tio_direction_output() ==> true > pps_tio_disable(tio) ==> false > > where "==> X" means assignment of enabled flag. > > And perhaps this: > > tio->enabled = pps_generate_next_pulse(tio, expires + SAFE_TIME_NS); > if (!tio->enabled) > ... > > But the above is just thinking out loudly, you may find the better > approach(es). You might need to introduce pps_tio_enable() counterpart, in such case it would be more natural to have enabled be assigned accordingly. -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
