> -----Original Message----- > From: Richard Cochran <richardcoch...@gmail.com> > Sent: Friday, February 26, 2021 1:09 AM > To: Y.b. Lu <yangbo...@nxp.com> > Cc: linuxptp-devel@lists.sourceforge.net; Miroslav Lichvar > <mlich...@redhat.com> > Subject: Re: [Linuxptp-devel] [v2] msg: bump to IEEE 1588-2019 version > > On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 03:20:41PM +0800, Yangbo Lu wrote: > > IEEE 1588-2019 specified new UInteger4 type minorVersionPTP field > > in header, and minorVersionNumber data in portDS. It has the value > > 1 for IEEE 1588-2019, and has the value 0 for IEEE 1588-2008. > > > > This patch is to bump to IEEE 1588-2019 version directly in message, > > considering v2.1 and even future v2.x are all backward compatible. > > > > Signed-off-by: Yangbo Lu <yangbo...@nxp.com> > > --- > > Changes for v2: > > - Made v2.1 as macros. > > I really like this change. It is short and sweet. > > However, now the test suite fails on 20-pmc. > > checking pmc output: BAD > sending: GET PORT_DATA_SET > 123456.fffe.780102-1 seq 0 RESPONSE MANAGEMENT > PORT_DATA_SET > portIdentity 123456.fffe.780102-1 > portState SLAVE > logMinDelayReqInterval 0 > peerMeanPathDelay 0 > logAnnounceInterval 1 > announceReceiptTimeout 3 > logSyncInterval 0 > delayMechanism 1 > logMinPdelayReqInterval 0 > versionNumber 18 > > I think we should have pmc print versionNumber 2.1 here (format %u.%u) > and then ask Miroslav to adapt the test suite...
My fault. I Just forgot the message printed. How about, versionNumber 2 minorVersionNumber 1 This may match field definition in standard. Considering it's only message printed, I think either is ok. What do you think? Thanks. > > Miroslav, I'm thinking the way to handle this in the test suite is to > accept both versionNumber 2 and versionNumber 2.1. > > Thoughts? > > Thanks, > Richard _______________________________________________ Linuxptp-devel mailing list Linuxptp-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linuxptp-devel
