linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net-next 2/3] dt-bindings: net: micrel: Configure latency values and timestamping check for LAN8814 phy

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <YifoltDp4/Fs+9op@lunn.ch>
Date:   Wed, 9 Mar 2022 00:36:54 +0100
From:   Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
To:     Horatiu Vultur <horatiu.vultur@...rochip.com>
Cc:     Divya.Koppera@...rochip.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        hkallweit1@...il.com, linux@...linux.org.uk, davem@...emloft.net,
        kuba@...nel.org, robh+dt@...nel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        richardcochran@...il.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        UNGLinuxDriver@...rochip.com, Madhuri.Sripada@...rochip.com,
        Manohar.Puri@...rochip.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 2/3] dt-bindings: net: micrel: Configure latency
 values and timestamping check for LAN8814 phy

On Tue, Mar 08, 2022 at 11:14:04PM +0100, Horatiu Vultur wrote:
> The 03/08/2022 19:10, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> > 
> > > > So this is a function of the track length between the MAC and the PHY?
> > >
> > > Nope.
> > > This latency represents the time it takes for the frame to travel from RJ45
> > > module to the timestamping unit inside the PHY. To be more precisely,
> > > the timestamping unit will do the timestamp when it detects the end of
> > > the start of the frame. So it represents the time from when the frame
> > > reaches the RJ45 to when the end of start of the frame reaches the
> > > timestamping unit inside the PHY.
> > 
> > I must be missing something here. How do you measure the latency
> > difference for a 1 meter cable vs a 100m cable?
> 
> In the same way because the end result will be the same.

The latency from the RJ45 to the PHY will be the same. But the latency
from the link peer PHY to the local PHY will be much more, 500ns. In
order for this RJ45 to PHY delay to be meaningful, don't you also need
to know the length of the cable? Is there a configuration knob
somewhere for the cable length?

I'm assuming the ptp protocol does not try to measure the cable delay,
since if it did, there would be no need to know the RJ45-PHY delay, it
would be part of that.

> > Isn't this error all just in the noise?
> 
> I am not sure I follow this question.

At minimum, you expect to have a 1m cable. The RJ45-PHY track length
is maybe 2cm? So 2% of the overall length. So you are trying to
correct the error this 2% causes. If you have a 100m cable, 0.02% is
RJ45-PHY part that you are trying to correct the error on. These
numbers seem so small, it seems pointless. It only seems to make sense
if you know the length of the cable, and to an accuracy of a few cm.

   Andrew