On Thu, Jun 08, 2017 at 03:50:13PM +0200, Miroslav Lichvar wrote: > What Hangbin is suggesting is different in that most of the work is > done in ptp4l and there are no or only minimal changes needed in the > kernel and phc2sys. ptp4l would use the master interface for > networking and slave interfaces for timestamping configuration and > clock control. It would need to know which slave interface is active > and react to changes. I think it makes sense and I like it better than > what I suggested.
Thanks for the clarification and opinion. > The question is if you would be ok with bonding/teaming-specific code > in ptp4l and if you have any suggestions on the design. Should there > be only one port, or should each slave interface has its own port? Ok, I will think about this... Thanks, Richard ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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 Linuxptp-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linuxptp-devel
