[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <PH0PR11MB4951C8C972C5123E7FC5DAFEEAC49@PH0PR11MB4951.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2021 08:29:14 +0000
From: "Machnikowski, Maciej" <maciej.machnikowski@...el.com>
To: Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>
CC: "Kubalewski, Arkadiusz" <arkadiusz.kubalewski@...el.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org" <intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>,
"Brandeburg, Jesse" <jesse.brandeburg@...el.com>,
"Nguyen, Anthony L" <anthony.l.nguyen@...el.com>,
"davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
"kuba@...nel.org" <kuba@...nel.org>,
"shuah@...nel.org" <shuah@...nel.org>,
"arnd@...db.de" <arnd@...db.de>,
"nikolay@...dia.com" <nikolay@...dia.com>,
"cong.wang@...edance.com" <cong.wang@...edance.com>,
"colin.king@...onical.com" <colin.king@...onical.com>,
"gustavoars@...nel.org" <gustavoars@...nel.org>,
"Bross, Kevin" <kevin.bross@...el.com>,
"Stanton, Kevin B" <kevin.b.stanton@...el.com>,
Ahmad Byagowi <abyagowi@...com>
Subject: RE: [RFC net-next 1/7] ptp: Add interface for acquiring DPLL state
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>
> Sent: Sunday, August 22, 2021 4:31 AM
> Subject: Re: [RFC net-next 1/7] ptp: Add interface for acquiring DPLL state
>
> On Fri, Aug 20, 2021 at 06:30:02PM +0000, Machnikowski, Maciej wrote:
>
> > Since the 40.5.2 is not applicable to higher-speed ethernet which
> > don't use auto-negotiation, but rather the link training sequence
> > where the RX side always syncs its clock to the TX side.
>
> By "the RX side always syncs its clock to the TX side" do you mean the RX
> channel synchronizes to the link partner's TX channel?
>
> Wow, that brings back the 100 megabit scheme I guess. That's cool, because
> the same basic idea applies to the PHYTER then.
>
Yes! Sounds very similar! :)
> Still we are doing to need a way for user space to query the HW topology to
> discover whether a given ports may be syntonized from a second port. I
> don't think your pin selection thing works unless user space can tell what the
> pins are connected to.
>
> Thanks,
> Richard
And a good catch! I'll update the RFC to add the query functionality and move the SyncE logic/pins to the netdev subsystem.
Thanks
Powered by blists - more mailing lists