> -----Original Message----- > From: Richard Cochran <richardcoch...@gmail.com> > Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2021 5:29 AM > To: Luigi 'Comio' Mantellini <luigi.mantell...@gmail.com> > Cc: Y.b. Lu <yangbo...@nxp.com>; Linuxptp-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > Subject: Re: [Linuxptp-devel] [PATCH] ptp4l: version preparation for IEEE > 1588-2019 > > On Sun, Feb 21, 2021 at 08:22:59PM +0100, Luigi 'Comio' Mantellini wrote: > > Correct. This is good observation. The 2.1 is backward compatible and I > > don't see any other issue. > > BTW I will give a check to the standard and I will ask to standard experts > > in my company. > > I re-read the v2.1 standard, and AFAICT it says that all current and > future version 2.x implementations are compatible, provided that you > don't use optional features. > > Since the minor version does not tell you _anything_ about which > optional features are in use, then I think we can safely ignore the > minor version field.
I think my patch may provide a bad idea making version configurable, after seeing all your comments:) Sorry for that. Considering only 1588, v2.1 is backward compatible. Regarding to many profiles, I only know 802.1AS... One thing I'm unsure is, if a profile is based on a specific 1588 version, does the message must use the corresponding version in header? For example, 802.1AS-2011 is a profile of 1588-2008, and 802.1AS-2020 is a profile of 1588-2019. Should the message header use version v2 for AS-2011 profile, and use v2.1 for AS-2020 profile? Another thing I'm unsure is, whether new version of a profile is also backward compatible. I hope yes. So, may I have your suggestion on how to move ptp4l to v2.1? Do we need to implement something like deciding 1588 version per profile in program? Thank you very much. > > Thanks, > Richard _______________________________________________ Linuxptp-devel mailing list Linuxptp-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linuxptp-devel
