[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <aFJcP74s0xprhWLz@pengutronix.de>
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2025 08:27:11 +0200
From: Oleksij Rempel <o.rempel@...gutronix.de>
To: Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>
Cc: Vadim Fedorenko <vadim.fedorenko@...ux.dev>,
Lukasz Majewski <lukma@...x.de>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
Arun Ramadoss <arun.ramadoss@...rochip.com>,
Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>, Tristram.Ha@...rochip.com,
Christian Eggers <ceggers@...i.de>
Subject: Re: [PTP][KSZ9477][p2p1step] Questions for PTP support on KSZ9477
device
On Tue, Jun 17, 2025 at 10:07:32PM -0700, Richard Cochran wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 17, 2025 at 05:10:11PM +0100, Vadim Fedorenko wrote:
> > On 17/06/2025 06:25, Oleksij Rempel wrote:
> > > No, this will not work correctly. Both sides must use the same timestamping
> > > mode: either both "one step" or both "two step".
> >
> > I'm not quite sure this statement is fully correct. I don't have a
> > hardware on hands to make this setup, but reading through the code in
> > linuxptp - the two-step fsm kicks off based on the message type bit. In case
> > when linuxptp receives 1-step sync, it does all the calculations.
>
> Correct.
>
> > For delay response packets on GM side it doesn't matter as GM doesn't do
> > any calculations. I don't see any requirements here from the perspective
> > of protocol itself.
>
> Running on a PTP client, ptp4l will happily use either one or two step
> Sync messages from the server.
Thank you for clarification! In this case, something else was wrong, and
I made a wrong assumption. I had a non-working configuration, so I made
the assumption without verifying the code.
Best Regards,
Oleksij
--
Pengutronix e.K. | |
Steuerwalder Str. 21 | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |
31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 |
Powered by blists - more mailing lists