* } else if (p->phc_index >= 0 && *
* p->phc_index != interface_phc_index(interface)) {*
* if (rtnl_iface_has_vclock(interface_name(interface),*
* p->phc_index)) {*
* pr_info("%s: /dev/ptp%d is virtual clock",*
* p->log_name, p->phc_index);*
* interface_set_vclock(interface, p->phc_index);*
* } else if (p->jbod) {*
* pr_warning("%s: just a bunch of devices", p->log_name);*
* p->phc_index = interface_phc_index(interface);*
* } else if (phc_device) {*
* pr_warning("%s: taking %s from the command line, "*
* "not the attached ptp%d", p->log_name,*
* phc_device, interface_phc_index(interface));*
* p->phc_index = phc_index;*
* p->phc_from_cmdline = 1; *
* } else {*
* pr_err("%s: PHC device mismatch", p->log_name);*
* pr_err("%s: /dev/ptp%d requested, ptp%d attached",*
* p->log_name, phc_index,*
* interface_phc_index(interface));*
* goto err_transport;*
* } *
* } *
This part of the code checks if VPHC is present using NetLink messages, it
seems like we are not getting the expected response, hence failing to
detect the VPHC.
*On Wed, Nov 23, 2022 at 5:22 PM Amar B S <amarnagendr...@gmail.com
<amarnagendr...@gmail.com>> wrote:*
>
>
>
>
> *Hi Miroslav,I checked your patch and tried it, but in my setup, it's
> failing well before the part of the code you have changed.The function
> "rtnl_iface_has_vclock" determines whether the given clock is VPHC which is
> failing and hence it exits during the Initialization phase itself. *
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *[root@supermicrodu1 ~]# ./ptp4l -f /etc/sysconfig/config_ptp.conf -m 2 -H
> -l 6 -s -i sriov2 option slaveOnly is deprecated, please use clientOnly
> insteadptp4l[175.953]: selected /dev/ptp8 as PTP clockptp4l[175.953]: port
> 1 (sriov2): PHC device mismatchptp4l[175.953]: port 1 (sriov2): /dev/ptp8
> requested, ptp2 attachedptp4l[175.953]: failed to open port sriov2failed to
> create a clockThanks,Amar B S*
>
>
> *On Wed, Nov 23, 2022 at 1:25 PM Miroslav Lichvar <mlich...@redhat.com
> <mlich...@redhat.com>> wrote:*
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *On Wed, Nov 23, 2022 at 01:04:42PM +0530, Amar B S wrote: > Hi Miroslav,
>> > > May I know on which kernel version, this was working fine? It turned
>> out to be a linuxptp issue. See my patch on -devel.*
>
>
>
>
>>
>>
>> * -- Miroslav Lichvar*
>>
>
_______________________________________________
Linuxptp-users mailing list
Linuxptp-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linuxptp-users
