On Tue, Feb 23, 2021 at 03:40:38AM +0000, Y.b. Lu wrote: > Considering only 1588, v2.1 is backward compatible.
Yes. > 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? I think that if you implement an optional v2.1 feature (like the security extension) then you can and should advertise v2.1 in the header. We already have some v2.1 optional stuff, and so we can bump up the version number. (I've just been too lazy to do that myself, and so I'm glad you are doing it!) > Should the message header use version v2 for AS-2011 profile, and use v2.1 > for AS-2020 profile? No, I don't think the minor version (the X in 2.X) conveys any actionable information to the PTP network at run time. There are no practical standardized constraints on the use of profiles. Sadly, It is up to the administrator to get the settings right. > Another thing I'm unsure is, whether new version of a profile is also > backward compatible. I hope yes. Yes. All 2.x versions are compatible, according to 1588. > 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? Please, just make the v2.1 as macros, fill out the minor field in the frames, and forget about dynamic version changes at run time. Thanks, Richard _______________________________________________ Linuxptp-devel mailing list Linuxptp-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linuxptp-devel
