Re: [Linuxptp-users] How to properly use twoStepFlag=0

[Timo Korthals]

Hi,

On 14.01.19 16:47, Keller, Jacob E wrote:

-----Original Message-----
From: Keller, Jacob E [mailto:jacob.e.kel...@intel.com]
Sent: Monday, January 14, 2019 7:41 AM
To: Richard Cochran <richardcoch...@gmail.com>
Cc: linuxptp-users@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Linuxptp-users] How to properly use twoStepFlag=0

-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Cochran [mailto:richardcoch...@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, January 13, 2019 12:57 PM
To: Keller, Jacob E <jacob.e.kel...@intel.com>
Cc: Timo Korthals <tkorth...@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>; linuxptp-
us...@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Linuxptp-users] How to properly use twoStepFlag=0

On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 11:09:32PM +0000, Keller, Jacob E wrote:

The two other chips supporting ONESTEP_SYNC are the TI dp83640 and the
Microchip LAN7430/1.
However, I only found chip samples but no buyable networkcards having
these chips.
Does someone know network cards with these chips or at least other
network cards with HWTSTAMP_TX_ONESTEP_SYNC support?

Unfortunately I'm not aware of any that does. :( I thought maybe i210 hardware

had

support, but no one has ever implemented it in the device driver...

The i210 does *not* support one-step, but IIRC there is some
misleading text that suggests this.

The data sheet indicates that it does. I haven't tried it myself, so I can't 
confirm if or
why the data sheet is wrong.

It would be nice to update table "5.3.2 Hardware Timestamping MAC" on [1] with the information of one-step/two-step capabilities. This is of course related to table "5.3.3 Software Timestamping", and if the driver supports it.

[1] http://linuxptp.sourceforge.net/

To my knowledge there is no off-the-shelf one-step card on the market.

Sorry,
Richard

Yep, that's as much as I know currently as well.

Thanks,
Jake

Yea, I read the datasheet section, and it appears that the 1-step insertion 
doesn't update the UDP checksum, so it would definitely not work for the normal 
UDP frame PTP, (as checksums will be invalid).

But isn't this only important for layer 3 PTP (aka ptp4l -4 and ptp4l -6)?
Layer 2 PTP (aka ptp4l -2) should work in that case, right?

Thanks,
Jake

Greetings,
Timo

_______________________________________________
Linuxptp-users mailing list
Linuxptp-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linuxptp-users

--

Timo Korthals, M.Sc.
Universität Bielefeld
AG Kognitronik & Sensorik
Exzellenzcluster Cognitive Interaction Technology (CITEC)
Inspiration 1 (Zehlendorfer Damm 201)
33619 Bielefeld - Germany

Office  : 3.413
Phone   : +49 521 106-67367
eMail   : tkorth...@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de
Internet: http://www.ks.cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de/

smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

_______________________________________________
Linuxptp-users mailing list
Linuxptp-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linuxptp-users