Hi Richard,
Thank you very much for your reply! We currently have a PTP implementation
done on an FPGA but we are looking for an alternative without using an FPGA
on simpler products. With the current implementation, we usually have an
accuracy better than 100ns (most of the time at around 60ns), this is why I
was considering the PHY tagging, to try to have the best possible accuracy
when using a CPU to implement PTP, but I don't know what accuracy is
possible when the timestamping is done at the MAC level and at the PHY
level, do you know if there is any benchmark about that? I saw some numbers
on a discussion saying that they had an accuracy of about 200ns with MAC
level timestamping, but having more consistent data will be great, 200ns
might not be acceptable for our application, we are going to do a
proof-of-concept to validate the results, but if we know beforehand the
achievable accuracy it could avoid to do extra effort if the required
accuracy is not achievable.
Regarding the CPU we are currently evaluating, the ethtool -T results are
different on the two ethernet ports, which should be according to their
spec since they say they only support TSN in eth0:
ethtool -T eth0
Time stamping parameters for eth0:
Capabilities:
hardware-transmit
software-transmit
hardware-receive
software-receive
software-system-clock
hardware-raw-clock
PTP Hardware Clock: 1
Hardware Transmit Timestamp Modes:
off
on
Hardware Receive Filter Modes:
none
all
ptpv1-l4-event
ptpv1-l4-sync
ptpv1-l4-delay-req
ptpv2-l4-event
ptpv2-l4-sync
ptpv2-l4-delay-req
ptpv2-event
ptpv2-sync
ptpv2-delay-req
ethtool -T eth1
Time stamping parameters for eth1:
Capabilities:
hardware-transmit
software-transmit
hardware-receive
software-receive
software-system-clock
hardware-raw-clock
PTP Hardware Clock: 0
Hardware Transmit Timestamp Modes:
off
on
Hardware Receive Filter Modes:
none
all
>From the ethtool -T results, the eth1 MAC doesn't have PTP-specific
Hardware Receive Filter Modes, but it still is capable of doing hardware
timestamping at the MAC level, right?
Is it possible to use linuxptp to implement a one-step transparent clock?
For example, when using both eth0 and eth1 ports to implement HSR we need
the PTP messages passing by the device to be correctly adjusted to have a
precise time synchronization of all devices in the network (HSR ring).
Best regards
Fernando
On Wed, Sep 27, 2023 at 3:47 AM Richard Cochran <richardcoch...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 25, 2023 at 02:36:35PM +0100, Fernando Gomes wrote:
>
> > Is there a list of hardware that can be used with linuxptp to do
> > timestamping at the hardware level (on PHY or on MAC)? There are some
> phys
> > that support it, like the Vitesse / Microchip, etc., but is there a
> > compatibility list available?
>
> I used to maintain a list of hardware, but I gave that up years ago
> when the number of products became too large. Nowadays most new MACs
> have PTP support.
>
> The easiest way to find out your MAC's capabilities is:
>
> ethtool -T eth0
>
> For PHYs, the main issue is that the Linux networking stack doesn't
> treat MACs and PHYs equally. If you really need to use a PTP PHY,
> then you will likely have to configure and even patch your kernel
> specifically for your hardware.
>
> HTH,
> Richard
>
_______________________________________________
Linuxptp-users mailing list
Linuxptp-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linuxptp-users
