Yo Jacob E! On Fri, 31 Jul 2015 18:46:21 +0000 "Keller, Jacob E" <jacob.e.kel...@intel.com> wrote:
> > Any thing I missed? Or can this be fixed?
>
> I don't believe this is currently supportable,
Yup, currently broken.
> since we only create
> one clock for each instance of ptp4l, and that clock would be the one
> generating the ntpshm_segment.
Which is why I tried running two instances of ptp4l. Fix the
config stuff and we are almost there.
When I dug a bit deeper I also found the IP address binding is not
quite right for multiple ptp4l instances.
Also, I see that I can put multiple interfaces on the ptp4l
command line. That can't work with just one clcok either.
> The "per-port" configuration is only
> useful when running the boundary clock mode, not for configuring
> different settings depending on what device is loaded.
So we agree the config file needs to be extended for SHM slave mode?
RGDS
GARY
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gary E. Miller Rellim 109 NW Wilmington Ave., Suite E, Bend, OR 97703
g...@rellim.com Tel:+1(541)382-8588
pgpLbu5x0evvQ.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ Linuxptp-devel mailing list Linuxptp-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linuxptp-devel
