On Tue, May 31, 2022 at 02:42:00PM +0000, Greg Armstrong wrote: > This is the reason synce4l (based on an ITU-T physical layer protocol, > G.8264) should be separate from linuxptp project and be it's own standalone > project; so that it does NOT get confused with L1_SYNC TLV from IEEE > 1588-2019 (if/when it gets added to linuxptp). The HA profile's use of the > physical layer clock is not the same as ITU-T definition of SyncE.
If synce4l remained specific to G.8264, the confusion could be avoided by renaming it to something else. (I don't have a suggestion at the moment.) There are plenty of conflicting options in linuxptp. The advantage of having both supported in linuxptp, no matter if the actual HW support is for both in synce4l or separately in ptp4l and synce4l, is that the support code can be shared. The difference in the protocol (L1_SYNC TLV vs SSM) seems to me quite small when compared to the rest. -- Miroslav Lichvar _______________________________________________ Linuxptp-devel mailing list Linuxptp-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linuxptp-devel
