On Tue, Mar 14, 2023 at 07:42:19PM +0100, Andrew Zaborowski wrote: > On Tue, 7 Mar 2023 at 16:35, Richard Cochran <richardcoch...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 07, 2023 at 04:21:52PM +0100, Andrew Zaborowski wrote: > > > The (minor) problem this attempts to solve, and I didn't state that, > > > is the confusing semantics and reduced utility of port_is_ieee8021as > > > if one relies on the name. > > > > So there is no bug. Just the code is confusing, right? Then you must > > ensure that the patch does not actually change the program's behavior. > > Whether it's a bug depends on what users expect from asCapable=true. > Or if it has any users in the first place, but it is present in some > of the shipped config files.
IIRc the whole (and only) point of asCapable=1 is too circumvent the normal port qualification logic in 802.1as, just for the "automotive" profile. > With asCapable=true your PdelayReq messages have their > header.logMessageInterval set to 0x7f. 802.1AS says it should be set > to the value of currentLogPdelayReqInterval. > currentLogPdelayReqInterval of 0x7f means that no PdelayReqs should be > sent, so in theory no PdelayReq with the value of 0x7f should go out. But the automotive profile doesn't care about this. Thanks, Richard _______________________________________________ Linuxptp-devel mailing list Linuxptp-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linuxptp-devel
