Okay so I did some reading (should have done so earlier), I see that in section
9.5.9.4 for *two-step* mode the Sync does not actually carry the
originTimestamp and it should be set to 0,
And instead the originTimestamp is in the Follow-up which is what I'm seeing so
this behavior seems okay actually.
I also see in 11.3.2 the Delay_Reqs should also just have originTimestamp set
to 0.
>Consider the simple case where you take two PTP capable MACs and then join
>them together into a bridge.
Could you run a ptp4l instance on both macs, eth0 & eth1 - oh you can't bind
both instances to the same IP that would cause confusion on receiving packets?..
If this is the problem then you could use ptp's domainNumber to seperate them
correct?Or Is there another issue I am not seeing?
Thanks,
Rob C
________________________________
From: Richard Cochran <richardcoch...@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, June 5, 2018 4:24 PM
To: Rob Cornall
Cc: Keller, Jacob E; linuxptp-users@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Linuxptp-users] PTP through a bridge interface
On Tue, Jun 05, 2018 at 11:14:25PM +0000, Rob Cornall wrote:
> For my other previous question I had, about Syncs and Delay_Reqs having
> 0 in the timestamp values (I had attached a capture) I see this also
> occuring in a device with no switch connected and no bridge interface -
> only an imx6 mac to a phy. I don't think this is expected behavior but it
> seems to be functioning okay?
No, that isn't okay, and the synchronization is not working. I never
tested an imx myself, but it is supposed to work.
Thanks,
Richard
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Linuxptp-users mailing list
Linuxptp-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linuxptp-users
