[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20220422152209.cwofghzr2wyxopek@bsd-mbp.local>
Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2022 08:22:09 -0700
From: Jonathan Lemon <jonathan.lemon@...il.com>
To: Lasse Johnsen <lasse@...ebeat.app>
Cc: Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
Gordon Hollingworth <gordon@...pberrypi.com>,
Ahmad Byagowi <clk@...com>,
Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>,
Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
bcm-kernel-feedback-list@...adcom.com,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2] net: phy: broadcom: 1588 support on
bcm54210pe
On Fri, Apr 22, 2022 at 04:08:18PM +0100, Lasse Johnsen wrote:
> > On 21 Apr 2022, at 15:48, Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com> wrote:
> > Moreover: Does this device provide in-band Rx time stamps? If so, why
> > not use them?
>
> This is the first generation PHY and it does not do in-band RX. I asked BCM and studied the documentation. I’m sure I’m allowed to say, that the second generation 40nm BCM PHY (which - "I am not making this up" is available in 3 versions: BCM54210, BCM54210S and BCM54210SE - not “PE”) - supports in-band rx timestamps. However, as a matter of curiosity, BCM utilise the field in the header now used for minor versioning in 1588-2019, so in due course using this silicon feature will be a significant challenge.
Actually, it does support in-band RX timestamps. Doing this would be
cleaner, and you'd only need to capture TX timestamps.
--
Jonathan
Powered by blists - more mailing lists