[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190529045207.fzvhuu6d6jf5p65t@localhost>
Date: Tue, 28 May 2019 21:52:07 -0700
From: Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>
To: Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>
Cc: f.fainelli@...il.com, vivien.didelot@...il.com, andrew@...n.ch,
davem@...emloft.net, john.stultz@...aro.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
sboyd@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 0/5] PTP support for the SJA1105 DSA driver
On Wed, May 29, 2019 at 02:56:22AM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> Not all is rosy, though.
You can sure say that again!
> PTP timestamping will only work when the ports are bridged. Otherwise,
> the metadata follow-up frames holding RX timestamps won't be received
> because they will be blocked by the master port's MAC filter. Linuxptp
> tries to put the net device in ALLMULTI/PROMISC mode,
Untrue.
> but DSA doesn't
> pass this on to the master port, which does the actual reception.
> The master port is put in promiscous mode when the slave ports are
> enslaved to a bridge.
>
> Also, even with software-corrected timestamps, one can observe a
> negative path delay reported by linuxptp:
>
> ptp4l[55.600]: master offset 8 s2 freq +83677 path delay -2390
> ptp4l[56.600]: master offset 17 s2 freq +83688 path delay -2391
> ptp4l[57.601]: master offset 6 s2 freq +83682 path delay -2391
> ptp4l[58.601]: master offset -1 s2 freq +83677 path delay -2391
>
> Without investigating too deeply, this appears to be introduced by the
> correction applied by linuxptp to t4 (t4c: corrected master rxtstamp)
> during the path delay estimation process (removing the correction makes
> the path delay positive).
No. The root cause is the time stamps delivered by the hardware or
your driver. That needs to be addressed before going forward.
Thanks,
Richard
Powered by blists - more mailing lists