On Mon, 2018-08-20 at 17:29 -0700, Patel, Vedang wrote: > On Fri, 2018-08-17 at 23:50 -0400, Richard Cochran wrote: > > > > On Thu, Aug 16, 2018 at 10:42:10AM -0700, Vedang Patel wrote: > > > > > > > > > - In port_p2p_transition(), we are setting up the delay timer > > > when > > > BMCA is set > > > as ‘noop’. Usually it is initialized then the device > > > transitions > > > to > > > PS_LISTENING. But, we are skipping the LISTENING state. Another > > > alternative > > > is to transition to PS_LISTENING and then unconditionally > > > transfer to > > > PS_MASTER/PS_SLAVE. But, that seems more of an hack than what > > > is > > > currently > > > being done. Any other alternatives? > > Maybe we can reset the delay timer unconditionally when entering > > SLAVE > > or MASTER. It will cause a minor glitch in the delay timing, but > > will > > it matter? > > > This will just mean that the interval between path delay calculation > might be atmost 2* delay_interval when you calculate delay the first > time after transition to master/slave state. I don't any immediate > issue with that. Will have to run some tests and see what really > happens. > I tested this and it works fine. I don't have any issues with it. We can use any one of the solutions (setting very small timeout value in port_initialize(), conditional delay timeouts, or unconditional delay timeouts).
Thanks, Vedang > Thanks, > Vedang > > > > 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
