AW: AW: [PATCH 12/12] spec/build/cpukit: Add option for enabling PPS synchronization

[Gabriel.Moyano at dlr.de]

> >
> >> In general, the patch set lacks test cases.
> >
> > I was thinking that the next step could be to add a generic device which is required to use the API (a file descriptor is needed). This is
> something that wanted to ask in the mailing list first. When this device is added, also the test cases can be. Furthermore I wanted to
> split the submitted changes in order to make a review easier.
> 
> A file descriptor should be optional. It should be possible to add a PPS driver just using struct pps_state.
> 
What do you mean with optional?

The RFC 2783 defines only a user API. For example for config the function time_pps_setparams() is needed. If we don't follow the RFC 2783, we will need to create an RTEMS API. Is that what you mean?