[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190822160521.GC4522@localhost>
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2019 09:05:21 -0700
From: Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>
To: Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>
Cc: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
Hubert Feurstein <h.feurstein@...il.com>,
Miroslav Lichvar <mlichvar@...hat.com>,
Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
linux-spi@...r.kernel.org, netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH spi for-5.4 0/5] Deterministic SPI latency with NXP DSPI
driver
On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 05:58:49PM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> I don't think I understand the problem here.
On the contrary, I do.
> You'd have something like this:
>
> Master (DSA master port) Slave (switch CPU port)
>
> | | Tstamps known
> | | to slave
> | Local_sync_req |
> t1 |------\ | t1
> | \-----\ |
> | \-----\ |
> | \----->| t2 t1, t2
> | |
> | Local_sync_resp /------| t3 t1, t2, t3
> | /-----/ |
> | /-----/ |
> t4 |<-----/ | t1, t2, t3, t4
> | |
> | |
> v time v
And who generates Local_sync_resp?
Also, what sort of frame is it? PTP has no Sync request or response.
> But you don't mean a TX timestamp at the egress of swp4 here, do you?
Yes, I do.
> Why would that matter?
Because in order to synchronize to an external GM, you need to measure
two things:
1. the (unchanging) delay from MAC to MAC
2. the (per-packet) switch residence time
Thanks,
Richard
Powered by blists - more mailing lists