Dear LinuxPTP Users,
New posts to this list has been disabled. If you want to continue to
participate on the mailing lists, please subscribe to the new list at
the Network Time Foundation.
https://lists.nwtime.org/sympa/info/linuxptp-users
Thanks,
Richard
On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 10:27:54PM +0800, paulzhn via Linuxptp-users wrote:
> I'm wondering why the offset exists.
- Linux system clock is in UTC timescale.
- PHC is in TAI timescale.
HTH,
Richard
___
Linuxptp-users mailing list
On Mon, Nov 27, 2023 at 08:18:54AM +, Hopf, Daniel wrote:
> Thanks Richard,
>
> Then maybe I misunderstood the output of ptp4l.
> I am specifically confused about the lines indicating "master
> offset" (which in my log started popping up after ~80 seconds, but
> sometimes don't show up even
On Fri, Nov 24, 2023 at 02:59:25PM +, Hopf, Daniel wrote:
> Following are the logs of a try where they synced up after ~80 seconds.
> Here's the SLAVE log (I increased neighborPropDelayThresh from 800 to 8000
> and set tx_timestamp_timeout to 100 in my slave config file):
>
On Mon, Nov 20, 2023 at 12:54:03PM -0500, Jean-Sebastien Stoezel wrote:
> When it comes to software timestamping, what is the PHC equivalent on the
> device? Is it a hardware timer? Or is it purely software? ethtool is
> reporting no PHC, and so I'd assume the PHC is some sort of software timer
>
On Mon, Nov 13, 2023 at 06:41:49AM +0100, Surya Arby wrote:
> Thanks for your quick reply!
>
> Would you be ok to tell me which commercial switches are very slow to
> process ptp in the transparent mode ?
I've made it my policy not to shame bad products, even though there
are tons of them on the
On Sun, Nov 12, 2023 at 09:57:56PM +0100, Surya Arby wrote:
> we are considering the use of linux-based switches (hardware timestamping
> provided in the ASIC, linuxptp will be used), the GM will be connected to
> the switch, and all ports will be BC,
In PTP land, switches and Boundary Clocks
On Wed, Nov 08, 2023 at 03:28:34PM -0800, Steve Sobol NTF wrote:
> The mailing lists and archives of the LinuxPTP Project are now fully
> hosted at Network Time Foundation. Direct posting to the Sourceforge
> lists has been disabled.
Small correction: Posting to the SF lists has not yet been
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
On Tue, Sep 05, 2023 at 04:45:14AM +0530, Karthick Gunasekaran via
Linuxptp-users wrote:
> Kindly let me know, if this waiting for 3 announce packets to send first
> delay request can be modified (or) this is as per standard and cannot be
> modified.
This is specified in IEEE 1588.
Thanks,
On Fri, Aug 11, 2023 at 12:32:24PM -0600, John Koch via Linuxptp-users wrote:
> I was wondering what the best way to configure ptp4l and phc2sys in the
> following configuration would be.
>
> There is a 1588 IPv4 PTP master present on the network. My computer has
> several NICs which have PTP
On Mon, Jul 10, 2023 at 05:37:10PM +0200, jmfriedt wrote:
> Is there a
> rationale for preventing out of the box linuxptp from working with both
> PTP 2.0 and 2.1 packets, since changing the constant in the header file
> seems to make the protocol operational again?
linuxptp works with both ptp
On Fri, Jun 30, 2023 at 07:58:15AM -0300, Elder Costa wrote:
> Em qui., 29 de jun. de 2023 às 01:35, Richard Cochran
> escreveu:
> > Also, it isn't clear from this how ptp4l(M/HW) on SOM eth_am is configured.
> >
> > If not in BC mode, then you also should cle
On Wed, Jun 28, 2023 at 09:35:08PM -0700, Richard Cochran wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 28, 2023 at 09:11:44PM -0700, Richard Cochran wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 28, 2023 at 06:37:42PM -0300, Elder Costa wrote:
> > > System clock GM+--> System clock SOM --+
On Wed, Jun 28, 2023 at 09:11:44PM -0700, Richard Cochran wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 28, 2023 at 06:37:42PM -0300, Elder Costa wrote:
> > System clock GM+--> System clock SOM --+ Sys
On Wed, Jun 28, 2023 at 06:37:42PM -0300, Elder Costa wrote:
> I ran a test with the system below. GM and AM running SW timestamp.
> The System clocks of the SOM and the AM synchronize with the GM's but
> there is an offset of 37s (GM's 37s ahead the other two). I tried
> using --utc_offset on the
On Mon, Jun 26, 2023 at 09:42:27AM -0400, engn...@gmail.com wrote:
> Created /etc/systemd/system/phc2sys_.service for each of the
> above 6 ports
I think you want just ONE instance of phc2sys running, not six.
Thanks,
Richard
___
Linuxptp-users
On Tue, Jun 13, 2023 at 01:01:11PM +0200, Erez wrote:
> Just so I am clear on the matter.
> I simply suggest taking the same test you run with linuxptp-testsuite.
> And run it in a github action. So we can all run it before we send patches.
> In addition to the tests you run :-)
I run the tests
On Tue, Jun 13, 2023 at 08:02:29AM +0200, Erez wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Using Miroslav's linuxptp-testsuite we can run a simulated HIL in github
> itself.
"Simulated HIL" is an oxymoron. H stand for hardware.
Don't get me wrong, I absolutely love linuxptp-testsuite, and I run it
on every single patch.
On Fri, Jun 09, 2023 at 07:14:31PM -0700, Richard Cochran wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 09, 2023 at 09:44:04AM -0700, Bernie Gmail wrote:
> > It would really be cool to read mode about your HIL setup. I would like to
> > create a similar setup
>
> I'll publish the source code
On Fri, Jun 09, 2023 at 09:44:04AM -0700, Bernie Gmail wrote:
> It would really be cool to read mode about your HIL setup. I would like to
> create a similar setup
I'll publish the source code. The HIL depends strongly on the actual
hardware that I happen to have, and I'm NOT trying to make a
Dear linuxptp users and developers,
Moving forward I am planning on making quarterly releases. The next
target dates are as follows.
September 5 2023
December 5 2023
March 5 2024
June 5 2024
Inspired by Miroslav's wonderful linuxptp-testsuite, for yesterday's
release I developed a
On Fri, Jun 09, 2023 at 12:28:29PM +0530, Tony Josi wrote:
> tony@tony-IdeaCenter:~$ sudo ethtool -T enx0c379
> Time stamping parameters for enx0c379:
> Cannot get device time stamping settings: No such device
You don't have a network interface of that name.
You can do
cat /proc/net/dev
to
On Thu, Jun 08, 2023 at 09:34:33PM +0530, Tony Josi wrote:
> How can I specify the PTP device, Isnt it the network interface that I have
> already specified?
Yes, you did specify the interface/ptp device, and that should work.
What does this show?
ethtool -T enox0c379
Thanks,
Richard
khil Gupta (1):
lstab: Bring expiration up to date.
Rahul Rameshbabu via Linuxptp-devel (2):
Improve efficiency of nullf servo synchronization
Fix SERVO_JUMP docstring comment
Richard Cochran (78):
Introduce the PMC agent module.
pmc_agent: Rename pmc_node to something mor
On Tue, May 16, 2023 at 01:54:47PM +, Eric Decker wrote:
> I have a question related to the question below. If you use a
> boundary clock between gPTP and PTP, does the PHC have to be shared
> by both NICs?
Yes.
> If each NIC has an independent PHC I think phy2sys has to be used
> two
On Tue, May 16, 2023 at 08:35:36AM +, Fueloep, Tamas via Linuxptp-users
wrote:
> Dear LinuxPTP mailing list participants,
>
> First of all, thank you very much for this amazing software - it
> really makes life easier and it is fun to use.
"fun to use?" hahaha that is new!
> I would
On Fri, May 12, 2023 at 01:54:05PM +0200, Víctor Vázquez Rodríguez wrote:
> We are doing some research based on ptp4l and I noticed that it
> doesn’t perform delay estimation and offset estimation on the same
> cycle.
There is no such thing as a "cycle" in 1588. Sync/FollowUp and
Delay_Req/Resp
On Fri, May 12, 2023 at 01:54:05PM +0200, Víctor Vázquez Rodríguez wrote:
> We are doing some research based on ptp4l and I noticed that it
> doesn’t perform delay estimation and offset estimation on the same
> cycle. That is, the client updates only the estimated delay when it
> receives a
On Thu, May 11, 2023 at 01:01:54PM -0300, Elder Costa wrote:
> The master offset increases, non monotonically but with a very definite
> trend, whether with or without the step_threshold parameter.
> What am I missing?
Maybe you have ntpd or systemd timesync or chrony running on the
client
On Wed, May 10, 2023 at 05:10:10PM -0300, Elder Costa wrote:
> Yes, I did read it. Several times. Unfortunately it is still not clear
> what it really means. That line was exactly the reason why I thought
> there would be some sort of clock resynchronization if there were a
> bigger than threshold
On Wed, May 10, 2023 at 02:35:01PM -0300, Elder Costa wrote:
> I think I am misusing the step_threshold parameter. What exactly this
> parameter does?
See the man page (ptp4l.8)
Thanks,
Richard
___
Linuxptp-users mailing list
On Sun, Apr 16, 2023 at 01:54:20PM +0530, shashank varshney wrote:
> *sfptpd supports PTP packets over bonded interfaces in an active/standby
> mode. In addition, sfptpd also supports bonding over LACP (802.3ad)
> bonding.*
Looks like sfptpd is a hacked version of the old ptpd program. If
that
On Thu, Apr 13, 2023 at 05:03:50PM +, Eric Decker wrote:
> I am working on monitoring gPTP health for automotive products using 802.1AS.
> According to 802.1AS-2020:
>
> 1. Section 10.6.1 "PTP Management Messages are not used in this standard.
> They are specified in IEEE Std 1588-2019."
On Wed, Apr 12, 2023 at 02:56:31PM +1000, Aris Theocharides wrote:
>
> >> LR actually have a slew of Industrial Ethernet (all multiport) on their
> >> website.
> >>
> > Okay, so I guess this is not a true Intel i210 but some kind of
> > strange clone.
>
> It would seem so, although I guess
On Wed, Apr 12, 2023 at 12:24:21AM +1000, Aris Theocharides wrote:
> LR actually have a slew of Industrial Ethernet (all multiport) on their
> website.
Okay, so I guess this is not a true Intel i210 but some kind of
strange clone.
Thanks,
Richard
On Tue, Apr 11, 2023 at 05:03:31AM +1000, Aris Theocharides via Linuxptp-users
wrote:
>
> The card in question is a 4-port i210 PCIe -
> https://www.lr-link.com/products/LRES3004PT.html
That is a very strange looking card. I guess it has 4 i210 ASICs?
What is under the giant heat sink?
On Tue, Apr 11, 2023 at 05:03:31AM +1000, Aris Theocharides via Linuxptp-users
wrote:
>
> The card in question is a 4-port i210 PCIe -
> https://www.lr-link.com/products/LRES3004PT.html
>
> It seems to behave for general use, but I can’t use it without PTP working.
>
> A single-port PCIe
On Mon, Apr 10, 2023 at 07:09:23PM +, Greiner, Andreas wrote:
> We are using these versions:
>
> ptp4l: 3.1-00224-gd4adf87
> kernel: 5.10.104-tegra
>
> Are there any mistakes on our side? What else can we try?
This is likely a bug in the vendor kernel. You should ask them to fix
it for
On Mon, Apr 10, 2023 at 10:31:05PM +1000, Aris Theocharides via Linuxptp-users
wrote:
> Intel Module (from SF, v 5.13.16):
Can't comment on that, since not mainline linux.
> Debian 12 Kernel Module (based on Linux 6.1.20 kernel, modified by Debian):
>
> > filename:
> >
On Tue, Mar 28, 2023 at 10:57:43AM +0800, merlinhe wrote:
> Hi Miroslav,
>
> We use Synopsys's IP, the driver is the same as stmmac
Yeah, the stmmac driver is crazy bad.
It is not clear to me whether setting the time when enabling time
stamping is actually required by the IP core or not.
But
On Mon, Mar 20, 2023 at 07:43:00PM +, Chang, Benjamin via Linuxptp-users
wrote:
> Does anyone know why the switch may be bounding between the actual
> grandmaster timesource and itself?
That would be a question for the switch vendor.
Thanks,
Richard
On Mon, Mar 13, 2023 at 10:29:55AM +0700, James Clark wrote:
> Would it make sense to set currentUtcOffsetValid to 1 if the TAI
> offset is set in the kernel to a non-zero value (which would typically
> come from running an NTP server)?
The time in the PHC is not necessarily connected to the
On Mon, Mar 13, 2023 at 01:31:56AM +0100, Georg Sauthoff wrote:
> However, I'm curious, is this a deliberate design decision to not provide
> a configuration setting for the currentUtcOffsetValid value, as well?
> Or is such configuration simply missing because nobody has bothered adding
> one?
On Tue, Mar 07, 2023 at 12:41:52PM +0200, Kamil Zaripov wrote:
> I have a setup where master running on host with Intel I210 network
> card and several slaves. Among them some can send PTP messages only
> over UDP and some of them only over Ethernet. So I’m using two ptp4l
> presses. One of them
On Fri, Feb 17, 2023 at 05:40:54PM +0530, Aditya Venu via Linuxptp-users wrote:
> But I want domain number 24, announce/sync/delay to be 8/16/16 per second.
> I've put these values in default.cfg but still it is not reflecting.
Did you run: ptp4l -f default.cfg ?
Thanks,
Richard
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 minimize
> their gain peaking for the synchronization of the last clock. This can
> be done with
On Wed, Feb 08, 2023 at 08:28:54PM +, Nemo Crypto wrote:
> What does NIH mean? Not Invented Here?
yes.
___
Linuxptp-users mailing list
Linuxptp-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linuxptp-users
On Wed, Feb 08, 2023 at 09:33:49AM +0100, Miroslav Lichvar wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 07, 2023 at 07:39:48PM -0800, Richard Cochran wrote:
> > Sure, if you have a chain topology of 15 hops, then you would start to
> > see benefits from using TAB over BC. But who has that kind of network
On Tue, Feb 07, 2023 at 03:59:23PM +, Nemo Crypto wrote:
> >As a practical matter, I don't see why you can't simply use linuxptp's
> >BC mode, configuring the two ports with 802.1as settings.
>
> >Who could tell the difference?
> Would the linuxptp's BC send all the TLVs required for
On Tue, Feb 07, 2023 at 01:49:42PM +, Nemo Crypto wrote:
> Then the actual question becomes, whether linuxptp has support for
> IEEE802.1AS Time Aware Bridge (Time Relay)?
No, TAB/Time Relay is not supported. There was some initial work done
(check the archives), but that was never
On Tue, Jan 24, 2023 at 07:13:01AM +, ramesh t via Linuxptp-users wrote:
> Any idea when is the next planned release for ptp4l?
Yes, I'm going to release version 4.0 with the current git HEAD plus a
few more items. ETA February 14, 2023.
> We are currently using 3.1.1 release, but we need
On Wed, Jan 18, 2023 at 08:37:20PM -0500, First Last wrote:
> So, does this mean that when using the Automotive Profile, we can never
> have ptpTimescale set to 1? If so, is there a reason for this?
It is an oversight from the original automotive profile patch set.
I also noticed that the pmc
On Tue, Jan 17, 2023 at 09:05:47AM +, Wagner Florian (DC-AE/ESW2) via
Linuxptp-users wrote:
> But for synchronizing the phase of the schedulers, it would be
> sufficient to synchronize the CLOCK_MONOTONICs relative to the cycle
> time of our tasks. So if we could for example define, that the
On Wed, Jan 18, 2023 at 11:36:40AM +0530, Aditya Venu via Linuxptp-users wrote:
> I am running my device as a master. Is it mandatory to implement driver
> call backs for gettime and settime for master?
>
> I think the ptp4l program doesn't call clock_gettime() and clock_settime
> but I'm not
On Fri, Jan 13, 2023 at 12:32:21PM +0530, Aditya Venu via Linuxptp-users wrote:
> d) I'm using default config files for both master and slave(attaching them
> for reference)
You are NOT using the default configuration.
You changed step_threshold from the default of zero.
This is the reason for
On Thu, Jan 05, 2023 at 09:54:21AM -0500, Jason Lehmann wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I am polling pmc in a thread at 1hz in a program with the following command
> -
>
> statusResp = exec("pmc -u -s /var/run/ptp4lro -i /tmp/pmc.socket 'GET
> TIME_STATUS_NP'");
>
> It returns the status but takes about
On Wed, Jan 04, 2023 at 08:55:51AM +0530, Gururaj Badiger wrote:
> Could someone clarify why these multiple ports are getting created for each
> PTP insace and what is the significance of these extra ports.
The port numbering follows the requirements of IEEE standard 1588.
If you run ONE ptp4l
On Wed, Nov 30, 2022 at 07:14:01AM -0800, Richard Cochran wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 30, 2022 at 02:27:19PM +0700, James Clark wrote:
>
> > I suppose problems 4 and 5 should be reported as kernel problems, but I'm
> > not sure of the best place to do it. Should it be the raspberry
On Wed, Nov 30, 2022 at 02:27:19PM +0700, James Clark wrote:
> I suppose problems 4 and 5 should be reported as kernel problems, but I'm
> not sure of the best place to do it. Should it be the raspberrypi/linux
> issue tracker or the kernel bugzilla?
The root cause of problem 4, like problems 1,
On Wed, Nov 23, 2022 at 03:12:36PM +0100, Miroslav Lichvar wrote:
> This is not an issue with the protocol. As I understand it, the kernel
> will normally not send or accept a unicast packet to itself over a
> real network interface. It has the loopback interface for that.
>
> One way to get
On Wed, Nov 16, 2022 at 01:54:52PM +0100, Jakub Raczyński wrote:
> arm-linux-gcc -Wall -DVER=3.1-00176-ga115563-dirty -D_GNU_SOURCE
> -DHAVE_CLOCK_ADJTIME -DHAVE_POSIX_SPAWN -DHAVE_ONESTEP_SYNC -c -o tlv.o tlv.c
> tlv.c: In function ‘mgt_post_recv’:
> tlv.c:374:3: error: ‘for’ loop initial
On Fri, Nov 04, 2022 at 03:36:14AM +, ramesh t via Linuxptp-devel wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Observed a issue where PTP is running is fine with single digit rms value.
> Due to error in switch/GM, there is wrong time update towards the ptp4l. This
> results in wrong update on PHC time on the NIC. PHC
On Thu, Oct 20, 2022 at 12:27:06AM -0700, Cliff Spradlin via Linuxptp-users
wrote:
> I'm looking into it further, but it looks like the X722 (which uses
> the i40e driver) does not record RX timestamps on layer 2 1588 event
> packets
But it does timestamp UDPv4 frames?
> where the version is
On Mon, Oct 17, 2022 at 10:24:36AM +0200, Akash Munirathinam wrote:
>
> Hey guys,
> I really would like to know the answer to this question that's bugging me.
> I have a NIC I350 with 4 ports. is it possible to make one port as Master
> and the other ports as slave? or do i need to have another
On Sat, Oct 15, 2022 at 01:46:08PM -0700, todd freed wrote:
> All the information I am interested in is available from pmc -u 'GET
> CURRENT_DATA_SET'. But I am not keen to run this operation in a
> separate process.
>
> It seems that pmc is talking to ptp4l roughly by,
>
> socket(AF_UNIX,
On Sat, Oct 15, 2022 at 02:37:06PM -0700, todd freed wrote:
> Question about the technique for converting PHC timestamps into
> monotonic deadlines.
>
>clock_gettime(CLOCK_MONOTONIC, t1);
>clock_gettime(phc, t2);
>clock_gettime(CLOCK_MONOTONIC, t3);
>offset = ((t3 - t1) / 2) - t2
On Fri, Oct 14, 2022 at 04:33:11PM +0530, Gururaj Badiger wrote:
> Hellow,
>
> Trying to make this query a bit simple:
>
> When *ClockClass* is set to 248, ptp4l, currently, goes into Ordinary
> Clock(OC) mode. By that, it can switch to either Leader or Follower based
> on availability of GM in
On Thu, Oct 06, 2022 at 06:44:29PM +, vignesh shanmugam via Linuxptp-users
wrote:
> Can you point me some clues what could cause this?
What is the MAC? Does it use software time stamping?
Thanks,
Richard
___
Linuxptp-users mailing list
On Thu, Oct 06, 2022 at 08:40:54PM +0530, Gururaj Badiger wrote:
> However, when Two LEADERS are running in the same domain then one of them
> goes to "PASSIVE" state as there can be only one Best Master in the domain.
> In that case, though there are two ports and they are configured to the
>
On Thu, Oct 06, 2022 at 02:32:18PM +0530, Gururaj Badiger wrote:
> Used two commands on two terminls:
>
> TERMINAL:~# ptp4l -i eth1 -m -f
> /home/root/ptp-manager/source/linuxptp_config_0.conf
> TERMINAL:~# ptp4l -i eth2 -m -f
> /home/root/ptp-manager/source/linuxptp_config_1.conf
You are
On Sat, Oct 01, 2022 at 08:47:53PM -0700, todd freed wrote:
> Could you say just a bit more about why it shouldn't be implemented?
I'm only saying that the potential benefit is very meager and does not
justify the implementation effort.
> I'm a professional software engineer, and I had thought I
On Sat, Oct 01, 2022 at 10:10:37AM -0700, todd freed wrote:
> I gather from the ENOTSUPP return that it's also not implemented
> today. I'm running linux 5.19.7. Just wanted confirmation on that
> point?
Correct. Will not ever happen. Big can of worms.
> I could run phc2sys on these hosts and
On Mon, Sep 26, 2022 at 05:02:28PM +, Deshpande, Yash wrote:
> 4. sudo ts2phc -c /dev/ptp0 -s generic -m
>
> ts2phc[17625.163]: PTP_EXTTS_REQUEST2 failed: Operation not
> supported
> failed to arm PPS sinks
That is because the i210 only supports "both edges" and
On Tue, May 04, 2021 at 04:46:59AM -0700, Richard Cochran wrote:
> On Mon, May 03, 2021 at 05:09:09PM +0200, Michael Walle wrote:
> > did I miss something or wasn't there a 3.2 release?
>
> You didn't miss anything. I have been delayed in pushing out the 3.2
> release.
Next r
On Fri, Sep 23, 2022 at 08:25:22AM +0530, Pramod wrote:
> Its confirmed that the announce packets from ECU1 do arrive in ECU2. But
> for some reason, looks like ptp4l is not able to consider it and there is
> ANNOUNCE_RECEIPT_TIMEOUT_EXPIRES.
>
> Do you have any ideas or suggestions as to
On Fri, Sep 09, 2022 at 08:45:19AM +0800, Hamilton Alex wrote:
> Hi, Richard:
> I am not quite understand. I am using Calnex master-->board slave, if the
> linuxptp print out is correct, that means local clock
> has the same frequency and phase as master clock, then the 1PPS out should
> near
On Thu, Sep 08, 2022 at 10:21:09PM +, Brian Lilly wrote:
> This is on a Kria K26 SOM, though granted, it's the development board KV260
> version and not the production SOM. I can test on a production SOM if that's
> an issue.
I would ask the vendor if/how they tested and validated the PTP
On Thu, Sep 08, 2022 at 02:39:13PM -0700, Jacob Keller wrote:
>
>
> On 9/8/2022 7:14 AM, Brian Lilly wrote:
> > I’m building a Petalinux image (Xilinx’ Yocto project based build system
> > thing) that includes linuxPTP. I have it starting as a service, and
> > subsequently, I also have phc2sys
On Tue, Sep 06, 2022 at 08:20:48PM +, Brian Lilly wrote:
> Some background:
>
> I'm building a Petalinux image (Xilinx' Yocto project based build system
> thing) that includes linuxPTP. I have it starting as a service, and
> subsequently, I also have phc2sys running to synchronize the
On Thu, Sep 08, 2022 at 01:56:59PM +0200, Luigi 'Comio' Mantellini wrote:
> - How is the 1PPS driven? Is there any reclocking logic? You need to ask
> your FPGA-experts.
+1
The circuit the produces the 1 PPS could well delay the signal by ten
or more nanoseconds.
Thanks,
Richard
On Thu, Sep 08, 2022 at 06:40:26AM -0700, Richard Cochran wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 08, 2022 at 07:41:53PM +0800, Hamilton Alex wrote:
>
> > however, the 1pps time error is around 40 NS, which means my board is
> > ahead of the reference for about 40NS, which doesn't match the
On Thu, Sep 08, 2022 at 07:41:53PM +0800, Hamilton Alex wrote:
> however, the 1pps time error is around 40 NS, which means my board is
> ahead of the reference for about 40NS, which doesn't match the result
> dumped by ptp4l.
>
> anyone has met similar issue before? how to debug such issue?
On Sat, Sep 03, 2022 at 08:09:14AM +0800, Hamilton Alex wrote:
> I didn't use custom vendor linux driver, Zarlink provided steps to adjust
> its DPLL frequency and I implement
> it by my self.
Oh, well, in that case, probably your own custom driver has a bug.
Good luck,
Richard
On Fri, Sep 02, 2022 at 08:38:08AM +0800, Hamilton Alex wrote:
> Hi, my friends:
> I got an issue for linux ptp servo. my board is using zarlink DPLL,
I'm not familiar with "zarlink DPLL". I guess this is using a custom
vendor Linux driver?
If so, your issue is likely a bug in the driver
On Wed, Aug 10, 2022 at 02:18:20PM +0530, Gururaj Badiger wrote:
> Is there any example of this type of message implemented in ptp4l code? If
> so, could you help me with what is the name of the currently supported
> MANAGEMENT type of message?
Start with msg.c|h and tlv.c|h
HTH,
Richard
On Mon, Aug 08, 2022 at 10:17:49AM +0200, Miroslav Lichvar wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 08, 2022 at 01:18:11PM +0530, Gururaj Badiger wrote:
> > I understand that for some of the parameters such as PRIORITY1,
> > PRIORITY2, PORT_DATA_SET_NP etc., PMC command provides the option to SET
> > the values to
On Mon, Aug 01, 2022 at 07:03:31PM +0900, Minseok Choi wrote:
> Hello,
>
> My system configuration has 7 computers and the NIC installed on each
> computer supports IEEE-1588.
> And each computer is connected by an general unmanaged 10GbE L2 switch.
> I want to use one computer as master and
On Sat, Jul 30, 2022 at 08:59:19PM +0200, Jukolas Juk wrote:
> I am getting the following output from the ptp4l command on a slave PTP
> node. When I terminate it (with Ctrl+C), some global statistics are printed
> out at the bottom,
That must be some hacked version. My program does not do this.
On Fri, Jul 29, 2022 at 03:44:48PM +0600, - - wrote:
> Thanks for the help, I will try to change the driver.
> Can you also help:
> I periodically see this message from the slave side:
> port 1: UNCALIBRATED to LISTENING on ANNOUNCE_RECEIPT_TIMEOUT_EXPIRES
The client has Announce messages timing
Dear list,
Just found this, authored by Intel:
TSN Documentation Project for Linux
https://tsn.readthedocs.io/index.html
It includes a chapter on synhcronization.
Just FYI.
Thanks,
Richard
___
Linuxptp-users mailing list
On Thu, Jul 28, 2022 at 09:31:34AM +0200, Miroslav Lichvar wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 27, 2022 at 01:41:23PM -0700, Cliff Spradlin via Linuxptp-users
> wrote:
> > I just wanted to share the results of an investigation on TX timestamp
> > timeout problems my project has been experiencing. The tl;dr is
On Thu, Jul 28, 2022 at 04:38:52PM +0600, - - wrote:
> Yes, but it doesn't always work.
> I increased it to 100msec.
That driver, e1000e, uses a plain old "work" to process the Tx time
stamp. Plain "work' runs at the lowest priority in Linux. On a busy
system, even higher delays than 100 ms are
On Wed, Jul 27, 2022 at 04:20:48PM +0600, - - wrote:
> ptp4l[402.740]: timed out while polling for tx timestamp
> ptp4l[402.740]: increasing tx_timestamp_timeout may correct this issue, but
Did you try increasing tx_timestamp_timeout ?
Thanks,
Richard
On Mon, Jul 25, 2022 at 05:46:16PM +, Oleg Obleukhov via Linuxptp-users
wrote:
> Hi team,
> I noticed that ptp4l expects 3 announce messages to arrive before switching
> LISTENING to UNCALIBRATED on RS_SLAVE.
> Can somebody point out why this is a requirement
See FOREIGN_MASTER_TIME_WINDOW
On Mon, Jul 25, 2022 at 11:43:52AM +, Osterried Markus (ETAS-DAP/XPC-Fe3)
via Linuxptp-users wrote:
> Are there plans to implement these functionalities in ptp4l and pmc?
None.
> If not officially implemented, can anybody give hints how to implement it?
> How to create events
On Wed, Jul 20, 2022 at 04:37:55PM +, Keller, Jacob E wrote:
> Right that's what I was afraid of: its basically just the same as software
> timestamping.
Actually it is way worse than SW timestamping.
WiFi has collisions. Many of them.
Multicast frames have zero priority and are *not*
On Tue, Jul 19, 2022 at 04:55:35PM -0700, Jacob Keller wrote:
>
>
> On 7/19/2022 2:13 PM, Mohammad wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > i am using Ath9k driver to implement Wifi-ptp .
This won't work. Better to simply use NTP instead.
> > in the README.org is is written adding this capability entails
On Thu, Jul 14, 2022 at 02:25:14AM +, joy_bhattacha...@arcadyan.com wrote:
> It is strange how the ptp4l slave can select a non-conformant GM as best
> master but not a conformant GM. Unfortunate that such non-conformance would
> be allowed to go undetected.
Whatever.
On Wed, Jul 13, 2022 at 04:22:31PM +0200, Fabian wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I had the same issue, systemd configurations did not affect the order of
> ptpX devices. I use chrony however. My script is attached. It's not the
> cleanest or nicest code but it works.
+1
Using 'ethtool' is way to discover the
1 - 100 of 655 matches
Mail list logo
