on a single network?
>From the PTP point of view it could work with two different PTP domain
numbers. The GM can run multiple ptp4l instances. They can even share
the same PHC, no need for vclocks.
But practically I think it will depend on the switch whether it can be
configured fo
rds as well? Could it be my model or
> the firmware?
Try the L2 transport. IIRC at least some Mellanox NICs performed
worse with UDP transport for some reason.
--
Miroslav Lichvar
___
Linuxptp-users mailing list
Linuxptp-users@lists.sourceforge.net
ssue. The two ports of the NIC don't share the same PHC, so
there needs to be something keeping them in sync (phc2sys -a) and
ptp4l needs to be told to not verify the PHC index numbers. That's the
boundary_clock_jbod option. Don't expect best accuracy in thi
l receive
messages from other domains with timestamps converted by its vclock,
but it will ignore them. With multiple ptp4l instances you have
hardware timestamping enabled in multiple domains, each instance using
only timestamps of messages in its domain.
--
tly 1 second, which is very suspicious. It
could be a driver bug. What kernel version do you use? It would help
if you could get a third device and see if it works better as a server
or client to determine on which side is the problem.
--
Miroslav Lichvar
__
ine 75
> failed to parse configuration file ./default-new-master.cfg
P and I should be replaced with the values from the table.
--
Miroslav Lichvar
___
Linuxptp-users mailing list
Linuxptp-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linuxptp-users
ent gains. If the sync
interval is -4 (16 sync messages per second), try the middle pair
first.
--
Miroslav Lichvar
___
Linuxptp-users mailing list
Linuxptp-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linuxptp-users
hardware. What NIC do you have?
One thing you can try is to shorten the sync interval and decrease the
PI constants, also on the client's port of the server to minimize the
frequency noise transferred to the client.
--
Miroslav Lichvar
___
ity would consider adding to PTP
> configuration.
There is currently no option to bind the client to a specific address.
It shouldn't be too difficult to add.
--
Miroslav Lichvar
___
Linuxptp-users mailing list
Linuxptp-users@lists.sourcefor
s sufficient, I think the Intel I210/211 would be
a good choice. It's well supported, timestamping is stable to few tens
of nanoseconds and asymmetries are already compensated in the driver.
It has PPS input/output, so you can verify the accuracy.
ay option to set the expected delay of the sync message.
--
Miroslav Lichvar
___
Linuxptp-users mailing list
Linuxptp-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linuxptp-users
ertainly cannot be
timed to such precision.
--
Miroslav Lichvar
___
Linuxptp-users mailing list
Linuxptp-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linuxptp-users
helps.
--
Miroslav Lichvar
___
Linuxptp-users mailing list
Linuxptp-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linuxptp-users
ematic from what I read.
If you are sure it's linuxptp, you can try
git bisect start v4.0 v3.1
and follow with git bisect good or git bisect bad after testing each
step. In about 7 steps you should have the offending commit.
--
Miroslav Lichvar
one for
changes of the port state and another for clock updates providing the
TIME_STATUS_NP message. I think that would work for your 1 and 4. For
the others some new notifications would need to be implemented.
--
Miroslav Lichvar
___
Linuxptp-
On Tue, Jun 20, 2023 at 10:07:14PM -0700, Jacob Keller wrote:
> On 6/11/2023 11:53 PM, Miroslav Lichvar wrote:
> > If you need to synchronize multiple PHCs to each other, it's better to
> > use one phc2sys instance to synchronize the system clock to the source
> > PHC and
being stuck at the maximum. The server, HW or driver
is broken, or something else is adjusting the clock.
--
Miroslav Lichvar
___
Linuxptp-users mailing list
Linuxptp-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linuxptp-users
to
use one phc2sys instance to synchronize the system clock to the source
PHC and then another phc2sys instance to synchronize the rest of PHCs
to the system clock.
--
Miroslav Lichvar
___
Linuxptp-users mailing list
Linuxptp-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://
and timeTraceable on the
GM with a pmc SET GRANDMASTER_SETTINGS_NP command for the client's
phc2sys to actually set the TAI-UTC offset of the system clock.
--
Miroslav Lichvar
___
Linuxptp-users mailing list
Linuxptp-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lis
gt; Wouldn't it be better to just 'log' the error and continue, or does even
> one occurrence of this error mean something is misconfigured in my setup?
I think this phc2sys issue was fixed after 3.1.1 in git. Please try
that and see if it still exits.
--
M
req +1 path delay
> >216530
> > >
> >
> > Where does that initial freq value come from?
It's the current frequency of the clock.
> > Is it possible to force it to +0 like in the log of the
> > first run above, the one that synchronizes?
p
-4 -S -s -m -q step_threshold=0.001 -i enp3s0
step_threshold is an option. If specified on command line, it needs to
have the "--" prefix: --step_threshold=0.001
--
Miroslav Lichvar
___
Linuxptp-users mailing list
Linuxptp-users@li
different PHCs?
No, phc2sys doesn't know about the other interfaces in the bond.
>- Does the passive NIC port's PHC is ready to take-over when the current
>active slave NIC goes down or does this require the passive NIC's PHC to
>synchronize first?
The latter. It's not a seamle
nces manually or
let timemaster handle it. See the man page.
--
Miroslav Lichvar
___
Linuxptp-users mailing list
Linuxptp-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linuxptp-users
028 if (tmv_is_zero(n->ingress1) && *clock_servo_state(p->clock) ==
> SERVO_LOCKED*) {
> 1029 n->ingress1 = ingress;
> 1030 n->origin1 = origin;
> 1031 return;
> 1032 }
Another option might be
se the PHC to be stepped. What
HW/driver is it?
--
Miroslav Lichvar
___
Linuxptp-users mailing list
Linuxptp-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linuxptp-users
s not very clear to me what is the issue that you are trying to
avoid.
--
Miroslav Lichvar
___
Linuxptp-users mailing list
Linuxptp-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linuxptp-users
_delay_req to NULL is
> needed, can i comment this to avoid the rogue peer delay response error?
The clock jumping in the middle of a peer delay measurement corrupts
the result. Pretending there was no request is a simple solution to
avoid accepting the response, although the error message is con
and it does appear to
> broadcast ptp, but it's using a local clock as grandmaster and not my
> grandmaster.
The NICs don't have a common PTP clock. You need to enable the
boundary_clock_jbod option and run phc2sys in the automatic mode to
synchronize the PHCs to each oth
s are alined.
>
> If my network adapter can provide a pps output on its SMA pins, how cam I
> enable it ?
In the source code of the Linux kernel there is a "testptp" utility in
tools/testing/selftests/ptp. It has -L option to configure PPS input
o
ted to be used as the
real config. It doesn't change anything.
--
Miroslav Lichvar
___
Linuxptp-users mailing list
Linuxptp-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linuxptp-users
On Mon, Feb 20, 2023 at 04:14:46PM +0530, Aditya Venu via Linuxptp-users wrote:
> I ran sudo ./ptp4l -f configs/G.8275.1 -i eth0 -2 -m
It should be -f configs/G.8275.1.cfg. The file specifies
the domain 24, the L2 transport, sync interval of 1/16s, and other
G.8275.1 settings.
--
Miros
On Thu, Feb 09, 2023 at 11:37:52AM -0800, Richard Cochran wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 09, 2023 at 01:32:14PM +0100, Miroslav Lichvar wrote:
>
> > Yes, but if you know the length of the chain and charateristics of all
> > clocks and their timestamping, you can tune the servos to minim
This assumes the sync interval is sufficiently short for the
instability of the clocks to not dominate the errors.
--
Miroslav Lichvar
___
Linuxptp-users mailing list
Linuxptp-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linuxptp-users
fer approach.
--
Miroslav Lichvar
___
Linuxptp-users mailing list
Linuxptp-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linuxptp-users
bridges/relays. I have no experience with gPTP.
--
Miroslav Lichvar
___
Linuxptp-users mailing list
Linuxptp-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linuxptp-users
any special
configuration. For a gPTP example see configs/gPTP.cfg in the linuxptp
tarball/repository.
If your interfaces don't share a PTP clock, you will need to enable
the boundary_clock_jbod option and run phc2sys to keep the two PHCs
synchronized. However, that might not meet the gPT
On Mon, Jan 23, 2023 at 04:36:11PM +0530, Aditya Venu wrote:
> *It seems the first clock step is disabled. Did you
> changefirst_step_threshold in your config?*
>
> It is set to the default value itself(0.2).
I have no explanation. Sorry.
--
Miro
d you change
first_step_threshold in your config?
--
Miroslav Lichvar
___
Linuxptp-users mailing list
Linuxptp-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linuxptp-users
hat NIC, kernel, and linuxptp version is it using?
--
Miroslav Lichvar
___
Linuxptp-users mailing list
Linuxptp-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linuxptp-users
tl /dev/ptp0 (or the
corresponding device) print?
--
Miroslav Lichvar
___
Linuxptp-users mailing list
Linuxptp-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linuxptp-users
rformance with hardware timestamping indicates a problem
in the network (e.g. have the switches enabled PTP support?).
--
Miroslav Lichvar
___
Linuxptp-users mailing list
Linuxptp-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo
e in setting the
> direction for debugging.
If you provided your config, you might get a better advice.
--
Miroslav Lichvar
___
Linuxptp-users mailing list
Linuxptp-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linuxptp-users
als from PHC on the
server and client?
--
Miroslav Lichvar
___
Linuxptp-users mailing list
Linuxptp-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linuxptp-users
age from the slave be delay_request?
No, delay requests are independent from sync/followup messages. There
can be zero, one, or multiple delay requests between two sync
messages.
--
Miroslav Lichvar
___
Linuxptp-users mailing list
Linuxptp-users@lis
it mean, there can
> be multiple PHC?
> Can there be one PHC on each port of a system?
Yes, it depends on the hardware. Each port of a NIC can have its own
PHC or they can share a common PHC.
--
Miroslav Lichvar
___
Linuxptp-users mailing list
Linu
he system? That
should confirm that ptp8 is a vclock of ptp2.
--
Miroslav Lichvar
___
Linuxptp-users mailing list
Linuxptp-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linuxptp-users
On Wed, Nov 23, 2022 at 07:53:32PM +0530, Amar B S wrote:
> 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.
Can you please run ptp4l in strace and post the output?
--
to use multiple network namespaces.
--
Miroslav Lichvar
___
Linuxptp-users mailing list
Linuxptp-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linuxptp-users
do that is to put them in separate network
namespaces. See ip-netns(8).
--
Miroslav Lichvar
___
Linuxptp-users mailing list
Linuxptp-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linuxptp-users
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-user
ilt as linuxptp includes a
copy of the required declarations from the headers.
I did a test with a recent kernel and linuxptp, and there is indeed
something broken wrt vclocks. I'll look into that.
--
Miroslav Lichvar
___
Linuxptp-users mailing list
n you please suggest what could be
> going wrong here? We are using CentOS 7 with
> *“kernel-ml-6.0.8-1.el7.elrepo.x86_64”*
Were the corresponding development files of the kernel available when
linuxptp was built? In the build log you should see -DHAVE_VCLOCKS.
--
iver. What hardware are you using?
--
Miroslav Lichvar
___
Linuxptp-users mailing list
Linuxptp-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linuxptp-users
8
> Can you please help explaining this behavior?
The timestamps printed by ptp4l and phc2sys in brackets is the
monotonic time, which doesn't match the 964 above. Are you running the
commands on the same machine?
--
Miroslav Lichvar
___
Linuxptp-user
use, I will try this.
CLOCK_REALTIME is supposed to keep time in UTC, not a local timezone.
The only observable time jumps when synchronized should be leap
seconds. If your application is displaying time in a broken-down
format, it might be an issue with calling localtime() instead of
gmtime().
--
M
Good to hear it's working. What delay is now phc2sys reporting? Those
~2 ns in your original post is way too much for an I350.
--
Miroslav Lichvar
___
Linuxptp-users mailing list
Linuxptp-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/li
'm wondering if this could be fixed with a firmware update or if it's
in the silicon. I vaguely remember some Intel NIC had a firmware
update which added a timestamping filter.
--
Miroslav Lichvar
___
Linuxptp-users mailing list
Li
le
> Ptp4l process is in running state, perhaps by running a PMC SET command (?).
It's not possible to change the intervals with a management message
and the current code.
--
Miroslav Lichvar
___
Linuxptp-users mailing list
Linuxptp-users@lists.
correctly.
--
Miroslav Lichvar
___
Linuxptp-users mailing list
Linuxptp-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linuxptp-users
PTP oscillator application), even driver or
> rather PHC hardware has ability to tune is such range.
What issue are you seeing with linuxptp?
In phc_max_adj() there is some code clamping the value on 32-bit
systems, so the overflow should be avoided.
--
Miroslav Lichvar
S_NP
Does the port ID above correspond to the client's port you intended to
query? There might be a different PTP client running in the
network and giving you unexpected responses.
--
Miroslav Lichvar
___
Linuxptp-users mailing list
Linuxptp-users
ters for i350a:
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:
no
On Mon, Sep 19, 2022 at 08:23:15AM +0200, Miroslav Lichvar wrote:
> > Please help me to disable followUp messages in linux stack.
>
> You can disable announce messages with the inhibit_announce option.
I should read the mail more carefully. There is no option to disable
followUp me
sable multicast messages, in which case there is the
inhibit_multicast_service option.
--
Miroslav Lichvar
___
Linuxptp-users mailing list
Linuxptp-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linuxptp-users
of the hardware, you can
connect them with directly with a short cable and see the delay
reported by ptp4l. If it is hundreds of nanoseconds or more, it's
likely MAC timestamping. Note that some drivers have hardcoded
compensation and some modern NICs seem to do it in hardware.
--
M
r the switch according to its
configured delay threshold?
--
Miroslav Lichvar
___
Linuxptp-users mailing list
Linuxptp-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linuxptp-users
er some
> time (randomly 10 sec -2min) ECU2 successfully getting synchronozed with
> ECU1.
>
>
> The question is why does ECU2 take more time initially to select ECU1 as GM
> ?
If you capture PTP traffic on ECU2, do you see announce messages from
ECU1 every two seconds (followi
? Does it have PHY or MAC timestamping,
and are those errors compensated?
--
Miroslav Lichvar
___
Linuxptp-users mailing list
Linuxptp-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linuxptp-users
gt; Up to 2 slaves can be synchronized normally, but if you try to
> configure 3 or more slaves, synchronization will fail.
That is odd. What HW and driver does the server have?
--
Miroslav Lichvar
___
Linuxptp-users mailing list
Linuxptp-users@li
surplus here
> Delay_req message
> Delay_resp message
>
> Is this normal?
Yes, it is normal. The timing of delay requests is independent from
sync messages and it is random. You can have 0, 1, 2, or more delay
request and responses bet
minimum value of 0 and a maximum value of {2^logMinDelayReqInterval+1}
seconds
--
Miroslav Lichvar
___
Linuxptp-users mailing list
Linuxptp-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linuxptp-users
n responding, or the interval happens to be
very close to 0, you could see two delay requests before first
response.
--
Miroslav Lichvar
___
Linuxptp-users mailing list
Linuxptp-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linuxptp-users
value decreases with appr 90 secs
The offset is in nanoseconds. That sounds like a bug in driver/hw.
What do you use? Maybe someone will have a better suggestion.
--
Miroslav Lichvar
___
Linuxptp-users mailing list
Linuxptp-users@lists.source
e server.
If you see the interval reaching 16 seconds, that means
logMinDelayReqInterval is 3 on the server.
--
Miroslav Lichvar
___
Linuxptp-users mailing list
Linuxptp-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linuxptp-users
in the ptp?
Sounds like a hardware or driver issue. What are you using?
--
Miroslav Lichvar
___
Linuxptp-users mailing list
Linuxptp-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linuxptp-users
;
This should create stable symlinks for the two PHC devices matching
the PCI device path.
You can find the device path for an existing device like this:
# udevadm info /dev/ptp7
P: /devices/pci:00/:00:1c.0/:03:00.1/ptp/ptp7
N: ptp7
E: DEVNAME=/dev/ptp7
E: DEVPATH=/devices/pci:00
m a beginner in this field and career .Any helps are appreciated.
You were probably using a custom linuxptp version. The official code
doesn't contain any option with "doubly" in its name and I don't see
anything in the git log either.
es you need
to run.
--
Miroslav Lichvar
___
Linuxptp-users mailing list
Linuxptp-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linuxptp-users
ncreasing
tx_timestamp_timeout. If that doesn't help, you will need to ask the
vendor or where you got the driver to look at the issue you have with
missing TX timestamps.
--
Miroslav Lichvar
___
Linuxptp-users mailing list
Linuxptp-users@lists.sourceforge.
e log on Leader shell:
Your log shows many tx timestamp timeouts, so that needs to be
resolved first. What hardware and driver are you using?
--
Miroslav Lichvar
___
Linuxptp-users mailing list
Linuxptp-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.source
ured with the same logAnnounceInterval? If the
client had a shorter interval, it would time out and lead to
the uncalibrated state. I'm not sure about faulty. Can you post the
client log?
--
Miroslav Lichvar
___
Linuxptp-users mailing list
Linuxptp-users
use the PMC SET command via
> shell.
Here are some examples:
# pmc -u 'SET PRIORITY1 130'
# pmc -u 'SET PORT_DATA_SET_NP neighborPropDelayThresh 1000 asCapable 0'
--
Miroslav Lichvar
___
Linuxptp-users mailing list
Linuxptp-users@lists.sou
e clients smaller, which I assume is
what you are primarily interested in.
--
Miroslav Lichvar
___
Linuxptp-users mailing list
Linuxptp-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linuxptp-users
ELECTED
> port 1: SLAVE to UNCALIBRATED on SYNCHRONIZATION_FAULT
> port 1: UNCALIBRATED to SLAVE on MASTER_CLOCK_SELECTED
> rms 4 max 7 freq +0 +/- 0 delay 7172 +/- 0
--
Miroslav Lichvar
___
Linuxptp-users mailing list
Linuxptp-users@lists.sou
t, SW timestamping doesn't make sense,
don't use PTP over wireless networks.
--
Miroslav Lichvar
___
Linuxptp-users mailing list
Linuxptp-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linuxptp-users
eps with the step_threshold option. See the
ptp4l and phc2sys man pages.
--
Miroslav Lichvar
___
Linuxptp-users mailing list
Linuxptp-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linuxptp-users
ing have an impact on this?
Yes, that's possible.
--
Miroslav Lichvar
___
Linuxptp-users mailing list
Linuxptp-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linuxptp-users
sting
the clock, like an NTP client.
--
Miroslav Lichvar
___
Linuxptp-users mailing list
Linuxptp-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linuxptp-users
can cause
> outgoing packets to get forgotten / stuck in the outgoing buffer.
> Those may have been fixed in newer kernel versions, but my solution
> was to switch to the pfifo qdisc which uses much less sophisticated
> codepaths.
Very interesting. Thanks for sharing.
Operation not supported
It's probably a bug in the patch that it presents both the SW and HW
timestamping capability.
But as was discussed in the previous thread, PTP over SW-timestamped
wifi will not work well.
--
Miroslav Lichvar
___
Linuxptp-use
hat way. I am not trying to
> read anything from ntpshm.
ntpshm doesn't synchronize anything. It just provides data for another
process to synchronize the clock. ntpd can synchronize CLOCK_REALTIME,
but not a PHC, and even if it could, it wouldn't know when it should
switch.
You need two phc2s
On Thu, Jul 21, 2022 at 12:41:54PM +0200, Jakub Raczyński wrote:
> > 21.07.2022 10:20 Miroslav Lichvar wrote:
> > No, that's not correct. Try running the ntpshmmon tool from gpsd to
> > see that phc2sys is writing new samples in both directions.
>
> You are mista
his cannot work.
--
Miroslav Lichvar
___
Linuxptp-users mailing list
Linuxptp-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linuxptp-users
be steered away, stepped, or ntpd
will give up depending on its configuration.
--
Miroslav Lichvar
___
Linuxptp-users mailing list
Linuxptp-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linuxptp-users
= 0 , slaveOnly = 1".
>
>
>
> I would like to ask for reasoning behind that combination block and not the
> other. Since SlaveOnly flag performs as expected, even for gPTP setup.
I'm not sure. If slaveOnly is 1, the clock will not ever b
ireless chips with
HW-timestamping support in future. If the stations can hear each
other, maybe it wouldn't even be necessary for the access point to
support PTP, like when using a cheap Ethernet hub instead of expensive
switch with PTP support.
ntrol over other clients.
--
Miroslav Lichvar
___
Linuxptp-users mailing list
Linuxptp-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linuxptp-users
sage when
>the slave is sending delay request message.
Does it work with ptp4l as a client?
--
Miroslav Lichvar
___
Linuxptp-users mailing list
Linuxptp-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linuxptp-users
d the Unix domain socket, possibly a
different ptp4l instance using the same configuration. Are you sure
there is always only one ptp4l running with the same uds_address?
--
Miroslav Lichvar
___
Linuxptp-users mailing list
Linuxptp-users@lists.sourceforge.net
h
1 - 100 of 221 matches
Mail list logo
