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.
Denny > 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 subject. Trouble? Email listmas...@chrony.tuxfamily.org.
