Hi, I did recently some more tests with multiple ports on out devices here. So I connected a two port device to a switch and started ptp4l that way: > ptp4l -m -i eth0 -i eth1
Then the output on ptp4l is as following: ptp4l[174593.550]: eth0: SO_SELECT_ERR_QUEUE: Protocol not available ptp4l[174593.553]: port 1: INITIALIZING to LISTENING on INITIALIZE ptp4l[174593.559]: driver rejected most general HWTSTAMP filter ptp4l[174593.562]: eth1: SO_SELECT_ERR_QUEUE: Protocol not available ptp4l[174593.565]: port 2: INITIALIZING to LISTENING on INITIALIZE ptp4l[174593.569]: port 0: INITIALIZING to LISTENING on INITIALIZE ptp4l[174593.578]: port 1: link up ptp4l[174593.581]: port 2: link up ptp4l[174593.586]: port 1: new foreign master 008063.fffe.b6706b-3 ptp4l[174593.589]: port 2: new foreign master 008063.fffe.b6706b-3 ptp4l[174595.572]: selected best master clock 00606e.fffe.7c230f port 1: PS_SLAVE S1 ptp4l[174595.577]: running in a temporal vortex ptp4l[174595.581]: port 1: LISTENING to UNCALIBRATED on RS_SLAVE port 2: PS_PASSIVE P2 ptp4l[174595.584]: port 2: LISTENING to PASSIVE on RS_PASSIVE ptp4l[174596.709]: port 1: minimum delay request interval 2^3 ptp4l[174597.572]: rms 951 max 967 freq -33 +/- 33 delay 3791 +/- 0 ptp4l[174597.575]: port 1: UNCALIBRATED to SLAVE on MASTER_CLOCK_SELECTED ptp4l[174598.572]: rms 1353 max 1651 freq -1602 +/- 482 So this looks pretty nice. It recognizes that both ports are in the same network, connected to the same Grandmaster, so the second port goes into PASSIVE-state. Now I disconnect the first (currently on SLAVE state) port, and expect that the second will get SLAVE state now, but that never happens: ptp4l[176670.930]: port 1: link down ptp4l[176670.931]: port 1: SLAVE to FAULTY on FAULT_DETECTED (FT_UNSPECIFIED) So it recognizes the link down on port 1 and then just stays silent. After investigating into the code, I recognize, that probably there is a handle_state_decision_event(c) on a link down event necessary (just to give the other ports the chance to recognize that link state change). Therfore I added one in clock.c:clock_link_status(), right behind the FAULT_DETECTED event. Now the ptp4l works as expected (takes the former PASSIVE Port into SLAVE mode on a link down and vice versa on a link up). But I'm unsure if I have done the fix right, since I now get on each such transition a "running in a temporal vortex" warning. So I would be glad if someone here could check this and may be find a better fix for that behavior. Best regards Henry Jesuiter ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot _______________________________________________ Linuxptp-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linuxptp-devel
