Hi Richard, We really appreciate the work and time you have spent on our commits and the community work you are doing for LinuxPTP and other timesync features.
"I read Annex B and Appendix III of T-REC-G.8275-202010, and I claim that linuxptp already implements this functionality, even though there is > no "virtual port" explicitly modeled." I see that you have said that this functionality is already present and it's against the design practice for having the same thing in two different ways. We have the opinion that LinuxPTP doesn't support the Virtual Port mechanism to address the specification. If you talk about BMCA in ts2phc or phc2sys that actually doesn't make any sense. Since the virtual port should participate in the ptp4l BMCA, it should select the best port among them, including the virtual port. This is actually in the right approach as ts2phc acts as a PTP node and sends announce and sync messages to the BMCA in PTP4L instance. There is a possibility of N numbers of Ports which can become master and TS2PHC or PHC2SYS won't be aware of it so keeping BMCA in the one place is the right approach. We do agree that currently the reverse direction message from PTP4L to TS2PHC is not implemented and TS2PHC doesn't stops synchronizing using the 1PPS in case External PTP Node become master, but this can be easily implemented with help of Virtual Ports, we can send the management message to accomplish this task very easily using Virtual Port. This can be an open item for discussion. The SyncMonk team would be happy to host a meeting at everyone's convenient time and day. Please note we are based in Bangalore, INDIA but can work in any timezone to solve the open items. Thanks and Regards, Vipin Sharma CEO and Founder SyncMonk Technologies Pvt Limited https://www.linkedin.com/in/vipinsss https://www.linkedin.com/company/syncmonk +91-9844419796 vipin.sha...@syncmonk.net www.syncmonk.net Bangalore-560035 On Sat, 15 Oct, 2022, 10:28 am Richard Cochran, <richardcoch...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sat, Oct 08, 2022 at 04:05:17PM -0700, Richard Cochran wrote: > > > > So I really don't see any reason for merging the Virtual Port patch > > series. It merely adds a second way to accomplish existing > > functionality, but having two ways of doing the same thing violated > > best software design practice. > > Having said that, I'm not *totally* against the idea of adding a > Virtual Port that participates in the BCMA explicitly. > > As I said in another thread, it would be nice to have the system clock > (think phc2sys) and/or the GPS clock (think ts2phc) act like first > class PTP nodes, generating and consuming Announce messages, > maintaining the relevant data sets, and running the BCMA explicitly. > > However, the patch series presented by SyncMonk doesn't follow through > in that respect. > > Thanks, > Richard > > > _______________________________________________ > Linuxptp-devel mailing list > Linuxptp-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linuxptp-devel >
_______________________________________________ Linuxptp-devel mailing list Linuxptp-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linuxptp-devel
