On Wed, Nov 05, 2014 at 08:28:04PM +0100, Jiri Benc wrote: > > I'm not sure whether this patch was enough to support the boundary > clock or more was needed but I remember I had the boundary clock stuff > done (though untested) and I cannot find anything on top of this, so > this was probably enough.
Having looked at the patch, and now I understand what you are saying, and why ptp4l must steer the SLAVE port's clock, duh. > -a without -r can indeed be considered as not much useful with the > current code. I intended to send the rebased support for boundary > clock shortly afterwards but as the review was much slower than > I anticipated, I ran out of time allocated for this. Yeah, but now I have time to review :P > I wouldn't call that half baked but if you want to have the boundary > clock support before a new release, I can try to get some time to work > on this. If it's really needed--maybe your patchset works okay, I admit > I'm not 100% sure, I would have to spend some time looking into the > code, my original patchset is obsolete, the patches it depended on were > redesigned heavily. No, my patch isn't going to fix it. But I think there is an easier way than what you posted. We only need to push the clockid into the port structure and then pass it along into clock_synchronize(). Well, I will take a closer look anyhow... Thanks, Richard ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Linuxptp-devel mailing list Linuxptp-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linuxptp-devel
