On Tue, Aug 04, 2020 at 04:23:35PM -0700, Richard Cochran wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 03, 2020 at 10:49:21PM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> > @@ -218,6 +218,19 @@ long ptp_ioctl(struct posix_clock *pc, unsigned int
> > cmd, unsigned long arg)
> > break;
> > }
> > }
> > + if (perout->flags & PTP_PEROUT_PHASE) {
> > + /*
> > + * The phase should be specified modulo the
> > + * period, therefore anything larger than 1
> > + * period is invalid.
> > + */
> > + if (perout->phase.sec > perout->period.sec ||
> > + (perout->phase.sec == perout->period.sec &&
> > + perout->phase.nsec > perout->period.nsec))
> > {
> > + err = -ERANGE;
> > + break;
> > + }
>
> So if perout->period={1,0} and perout->phase={1,0} then the phase has
> wrapped 360 degrees back to zero.
>
> Shouldn't this code catch that case as well?
>
> So why not test for (perout->phase.nsec >= perout->period.nsec) instead?
>
> Thanks,
> Richard
Oof, I guess this is what one would call 'brain fart'. In my mind,
checking for equality between period and phase required an extra 'if',
which I was reluctant to add (or to even think about, it seems). I
converted the nsec check to >= and it works as it should (I checked with
a modified ts2phc).
ts2phc[326.764]: config item /dev/ptp1.ts2phc.perout_phase is 1000000000
ts2phc[326.764]: config item /dev/ptp1.ts2phc.pulsewidth is 500000000
ts2phc[326.764]: PTP_PEROUT_REQUEST2 failed: Numerical result out of range
I'm sending a v2 with your change very soon.
Thanks.
-Vladimir
