[LinuxPPS] oncore almost working

[Martin]

Hi.

I think this is mostly for Reg Clemens, but everyones input
would be much appreciated.

I've patched my kernel and everything seems to be
working. With my oncore gps hooked up (I have a CNS clock
with the UT (or UT+ ?) chipset), I am getting the pulses as
can be see with the ppstest program:

root at refclock2:/usr/src/linux/drivers/pps# ppstest 
found PPS source #0 "serial0" on "/dev/ttyS0"
ok, found 1 source(s), now start fetching data...
source 0 - assert 1178833769.951610156, sequence: 43 - clear
1178834100.142258797, sequence: 45
source 0 - assert 1178834100.943780854, sequence: 44 - clear
1178834100.142258797, sequence: 45
source 0 - assert 1178834100.943780854, sequence: 44 - clear
1178834101.142291417, sequence: 46
source 0 - assert 1178834101.943756940, sequence: 45 - clear
1178834101.142291417, sequence: 46
source 0 - assert 1178834101.943756940, sequence: 45 - clear
1178834102.142323697, sequence: 47
source 0 - assert 1178834102.943733178, sequence: 46 - clear
1178834102.142323697, sequence: 47

I will write up the process I went through for my
distribution and post it somewhere if people think it would
be usefull.


My problem is that in my /etc/ntp.oncore0 I had
HARDPPS... this does not work with the current PPSkit, and
it worked with the 2.4 series patches.

The oncore driver bails when then kernel module tells it
that the PPS_KC_HARDPPS is not supported.

I've read around, and I think I want HARDPPS, but I am not
sure I totally understand what is going on... in particular
with the new patch.

Back with the 2.4 kernel patches, the PPS_KC_HARDPPS was
supported. What did it do? What did specifying HARDPPS in
the oncore configuration file mean?

By not supporting it in the 2.6 patch, is there going to be
a different behavior?

I'll start looking through the 2.4 patches to see if I can
understand what is going on... but in the meantime, if
anyone knows what is going on :D.

What I want is my systems clock to be conditioned by ntp
with the gps so it has a better idea of how long a second
really is.


Thanks so much!

Martin.