On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 4:37 AM, Richard Cochran <richardcoch...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 07, 2018 at 02:57:40PM +0200, André Sadie wrote:
> > Is the 7μs really as unreasonable as I think?
>
> Yes.
>
> > Any recommendations on how to proceed?
>
> Does this device support HW time stamping at all? (ethtool -T)
>
> If not, it won't work well for gPTP.
> If so, then something is really wrong.
>
> I would stick with the i210...
>
The device does support HW timestamping, see 'ethtool -T' output below.
Also if I force software timestamping the propagation delay is much higher
and varies between 30μs to 150μs.
>From 'ethtool -T'
Time stamping parameters for eno1:
Capabilities:
hardware-transmit (SOF_TIMESTAMPING_TX_HARDWARE)
software-transmit (SOF_TIMESTAMPING_TX_SOFTWARE)
hardware-receive (SOF_TIMESTAMPING_RX_HARDWARE)
software-receive (SOF_TIMESTAMPING_RX_SOFTWARE)
software-system-clock (SOF_TIMESTAMPING_SOFTWARE)
hardware-raw-clock (SOF_TIMESTAMPING_RAW_HARDWARE)
PTP Hardware Clock: 0
Hardware Transmit Timestamp Modes:
off (HWTSTAMP_TX_OFF)
on (HWTSTAMP_TX_ON)
Hardware Receive Filter Modes:
none (HWTSTAMP_FILTER_NONE)
all (HWTSTAMP_FILTER_ALL)
ptpv1-l4-sync (HWTSTAMP_FILTER_PTP_V1_L4_SYNC)
ptpv1-l4-delay-req (HWTSTAMP_FILTER_PTP_V1_L4_DELAY_REQ)
ptpv2-l4-sync (HWTSTAMP_FILTER_PTP_V2_L4_SYNC)
ptpv2-l4-delay-req (HWTSTAMP_FILTER_PTP_V2_L4_DELAY_REQ)
ptpv2-l2-sync (HWTSTAMP_FILTER_PTP_V2_L2_SYNC)
ptpv2-l2-delay-req (HWTSTAMP_FILTER_PTP_V2_L2_DELAY_REQ)
ptpv2-event (HWTSTAMP_FILTER_PTP_V2_EVENT)
ptpv2-sync (HWTSTAMP_FILTER_PTP_V2_SYNC)
ptpv2-delay-req (HWTSTAMP_FILTER_PTP_V2_DELAY_REQ)
Thank you,
Andre.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
