[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140912144025.GA20712@netboy>
Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2014 16:40:25 +0200
From: Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>
To: Daniel Glöckner <dg@...ix.com>
Cc: Christian Riesch <christian.riesch@...cron.at>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: PTP_PEROUT_REQUEST and clock stepping
On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 01:40:32PM +0200, Daniel Glöckner wrote:
> You mean the hardware that you know of that currently exists.
Yes, that is the hardware we support. I am sorry that I don't know how
to support mythical hardware.
> I just think it is wrong to place the burden of stopping and starting
> the periodic output on the PTP demon.
I think it is the right place.
> The kernel knows when clock_adjtime
> and clock_settime are called and it also knows which periodic outputs
> are enabled and how they are configured. We just have to decide on the
> correct behavior (respect .start vs. ignore .start once running) to be
> implemented.
The only reasonable actions for kernel would be to either stop all
periodic outputs, or to just do nothing.
> Taking the Intel i210 as an example, the third option (doing nothing)
> would lead to the following behavior:
>
> - If the clock is stepped back, the periodic output stops until the
> clock reaches the point when it was adjusted.
>
> - If the clock is stepped forward, the periodic output oscillates at
> 62,5 MHz to catch up.
That is a good example of "the results are undefined".
So, how would you reprogram the i210 to keep the period output
continuous?
Thanks,
Richard
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists