On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 08:46:46AM +0200, Miroslav Lichvar wrote:
> Would it be possible to make the netlink socket optional?
Ok, I'll make it into a warning if rtnl is missing.
Thanks,
Richard
--
Check out the vibrant
On Sun, 2016-10-16 at 13:09 +0200, Richard Cochran wrote:
> If you know of any other problems with 1.7 or in the current git
> head,
> please let me know right away.
Hi Richard,
I'd like to test, but I don't see any commits since the 1.7 release,
except for one commit from August. I'm
using
On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 12:43:39PM +0200, Tino Mettler wrote:
> I'd like to test, but I don't see any commits since the 1.7 release,
> except for one commit from August. I'm
> using git://git.code.sf.net/p/linuxptp/code. Is this intended?
Yes, I don't push out anything unless the patches have
On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 08:46:22PM +, Keller, Jacob E wrote:
> On Mon, 2016-10-17 at 16:33 +0200, Miroslav Lichvar wrote:
> > When there are multiple instances of ptp4l or phc2sys running on the
> > system, it's difficult to tell which message belongs to which
> > instance. The first patch
> I have seen the interrupts on the i210 get stuck when stressing the
> input time stamp function with a 1 kHz input. The interrupts simply
> stop triggering. But your issue sounds different.
>
> Thanks,
> Richard
I suspect this may have something to do with double acknowledging the
On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 06:13:46PM +0530, sk.syed2 wrote:
> I tried to enable one-step with AS(gPTP.cfg) and (twoStepFlag = 0).
> Looking at the code though followup_info_tlv is not being appended to
> the sync message.
>
>So my question, does ptp4l support ASREV one-step sync with HW
>
On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 05:16:21PM +0200, Miroslav Lichvar wrote:
> I'm testing this, but I'm not sure if it's working correctly. When I
> take the interface down I see a "link up" message from ptp4l. When I
> bring it up, there is another "link up" message.
I only tested by pulling the cable! A
On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 08:39:16PM +, Keller, Jacob E wrote:
> Sounds good to me. I don't have any current issues, but being able to
> let people know that the RTNL link handling will be in 1.7 will be
> nice. Thanks for all your work.
Maybe rtnl is not quite ready yet. I'd like positive
On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 08:35:56AM +0200, Richard Cochran wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 05:16:21PM +0200, Miroslav Lichvar wrote:
> > I'm testing this, but I'm not sure if it's working correctly. When I
> > take the interface down I see a "link up" message from ptp4l. When I
> > bring it up,
On Sun, Oct 16, 2016 at 12:55:50PM +0200, Richard Cochran wrote:
> +void port_link_status_set(struct port *p, int up)
> +{
> + p->link_status = up ? 1 : 0;
> + pr_notice("port %hu: link %s", portnum(p), up ? "up" : "down");
> +}
In my testing I see duplicated messages "link up" and "link
On Tue, 2016-10-18 at 08:38 +0200, Richard Cochran wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 08:39:16PM +, Keller, Jacob E wrote:
> >
> > Sounds good to me. I don't have any current issues, but being able
> > to
> > let people know that the RTNL link handling will be in 1.7 will be
> > nice. Thanks
On Tue, 2016-10-18 at 20:47 +0200, Richard Cochran wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 05:19:51PM +0100, Kieran Tyrrell wrote:
> >
> > So reading the TSICR register acknowledges the interrupt and clears
> > the register. If another tsync interrupt occurs while in the
> > interrupt handler, the
12 matches
Mail list logo
