Unfortunately, I’ve not yet received any response on the Intel list. While it’s 
quite clear that both the i211 and i354 require some compensation, I don’t have 
a good way to determine it other than by shots in the dark. The i211 seems to 
correspond with the i210 correction parameters, so I am currently using those 
for the i210, but the i354 is completely different. Still at it.


> On Dec 7, 2016, at 23:04, Denny Page <dennyp...@me.com> wrote:
> On the offset issue… one of the benefits of having so many ports, and several 
> of hardware based NTP units (thanks Leo/Anthony!) is that I have been able to 
> replicate the issue by connecting serval ports directly from host to host 
> with and without an intervening switch. I’ve also been able to test different 
> chipsets. The short version of all the tests is that there is clear asymmetry 
> with hardware timestamps. Based on research and the fact that the asymmetry 
> varies with chipset, my best guess is that the hardware tx/rx timestamps are 
> incorrect and need compensation in the driver. The 4.8.X kernel introduced 
> compensation for the i210, but not for the i211 or the i354 (which I am 
> testing with). I have a query into the Intel folk about this and will let you 
> know what they say.

To unsubscribe email chrony-dev-requ...@chrony.tuxfamily.org with "unsubscribe" 
in the subject.
For help email chrony-dev-requ...@chrony.tuxfamily.org with "help" in the 
Trouble?  Email listmas...@chrony.tuxfamily.org.

Reply via email to