Sorry, just getting around to this...

On Thu, Jan 24, 2019 at 07:23:38AM +0000, Ravali Potineni wrote:

> I have been trying to run ptp4l in transparent clock(TC) mode with
> the setup as follows - I have connected 'eth1' of zcu102(let's call
> this board-1) to intel card PC and 'eth2' of it to 'eth1' of another
> zcu102(let's call it board-2).

So we have:

[PC]---[eth1 board-1 eth2]---[eth1 board-2 eth2]

> I have run ptp4l in TC mode on board-1 with the command "ptp4l -P -2 -H -i 
> eth1 -i eth2 -p /dev/ptp0 -m -f /usr/sbin/ptp4l_slave.conf". 
> /usr/sbin/ptp4l_slave.conf has the following configuration:

Do you really need '-p' ?  (I suspect not.)

> [global]
> transportSpecific       1
> priority1 250

The TC should run at the lowest priority (ie highest value of 254).
It should never, never become the GM!

> I have also tried to give '-t' option but it says "ptp4l: invalid option -- 
> 't'".

Oops, that was from an early version of the TC work.  There is no -t
option!  I just fixed the usage message now.
 
> I have made the following observations: On board-2, ptp4l doesn't
> synchronize with PC. Nor it recognizes PC as grand master. It prints
> the following messages:

> I have also observed that when 'free_running' field is removed from
> configuration of board-1 and let the synchronization with PC start
> on board-1, board-2 starts synchronizing with PC. Within 1-2
> seconds, if free_running is added back to the configuration, board-1
> stops synchronization, but board-2 keeps synchronizing.

Strange.

> In either case, announce messages are being received on board-2
> which have grandmasterClockIdentity as the MAC address of PC.

Hm.

> I believe in the ideal case, board-2 should start synchronization
> and board-1 shouldn't even when free_running is present in
> configuration. Please let me know what is it that I'm doing wrong.

Yes, that is the idea.  Can you try board-1 with priority1=254 please?

I don't immediately see why your setup fails (since the PC has the
highest priority), but the intention was that the TC always have
lowest priority (see the example in configs/P2P-TC.cfg).

Thanks,
Richard



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

Reply via email to