Hi John,
It looks like you should have the latest driver (3.3.3) already. If you could
isolate the problem using testptp from the Documentation/ptp folder of the
kernel tree, using the sourceforge e1000e driver, and show that it is having
issues, then we can get that reported to the team that owns e1000e, and
hopefully they can determine what needs to be fixed.
Thanks,
Jake
From: John Hubbard [mailto:jhubb...@noao.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2016 10:55 AM
To: Keller, Jacob E <jacob.e.kel...@intel.com>; richardcoch...@gmail.com
Cc: linuxptp-users@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Linuxptp-users] Need help debugging failed clock synchronization
On 03/22/2016 03:35 PM, Keller, Jacob E wrote:
Hi John,
On Wed, 2016-03-16 at 13:45 -0700, John Hubbard wrote:
On 03/16/2016 12:54 PM, Richard Cochran wrote:
On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 10:20:35AM -0700, John Hubbard wrote:
After changing the 'time_stamping' option in /etc/ptp4l.conf from
hardware to software and restarting ptp4l I now see much better
behavior.
Yes, but probably you are disappointed having to forego the HW
synchronization performance. At least this test shows that your
card
most likely has a HW bug.
If possible it would be really nice to get the HW time-stamping
working
on this system. I can move to another system if needed but getting
this
working would help me in the short term. (No expansion ports or I'd
just pick up another NIC. On a related note do you or anyone else
on
the list know how well the Intel X540 (10Gb NIC using the ixgbe
driver)
is supported WRT ptp4l?
The X540 device should be supported WRT ptp4l, and as far as I know it
works quite well. I am sorry for the troubles the e1000e adapter is
causing. It is most likely a driver issue. I am not 100% sure who is
responsible for that driver now, but I will attempt to determine if the
latest errata have been released on SourceForge yet. (It can be slow
sometimes)
Thanks for the info about the x540. Please let me know if a newer driver for
the 82574L ends up on SF.
--
-john
To be or not to be, that is the question
2b || !2b
(0b10)*(0b1100010) || !(0b10)*(0b1100010)
0b11000100 || !0b11000100
0b11000100 || 0b00111011
0b11111111
255, that is the answer.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Transform Data into Opportunity.
Accelerate data analysis in your applications with
Intel Data Analytics Acceleration Library.
Click to learn more.
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=278785351&iu=/4140
_______________________________________________
Linuxptp-users mailing list
Linuxptp-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linuxptp-users
