Re: [Linuxptp-users] pmc answering with more than asked for

Another followup with shower-thoughts: 2018-03-06 18:53 GMT+01:00 Richard Cochran : > Using UDS is not part of 1588. The UDS client has no 1588 port ID at > all. Therefore, we set the source port ID to zero. Suggestion: Set the clockIdentity as usual (so like for

Re: [Linuxptp-users] pmc answering with more than asked for

First: Thanks for the extensive responses, not exactly common on some mailing lists :) 2018-03-06 18:53 GMT+01:00 Richard Cochran : > It really isn't rocket science. Here is an (untested) awk script that > accepts responses from exactly one port: My issue is a bit

Re: [Linuxptp-users] pmc answering with more than asked for

On Tue, Mar 06, 2018 at 06:01:02PM +0100, Oliver Westermann wrote: > b) is there a reason not > to use IP_MULTICAST_LOOP on the IPv4 port for pmc? Actually, that won't work the way that you would want it to. The transmitted frames from pmc will be looped back, but the multicast responses from

Re: [Linuxptp-users] pmc answering with more than asked for

On Tue, Mar 06, 2018 at 06:01:02PM +0100, Oliver Westermann wrote: > We might have a different perspective on "complex use case". I would have > expected that this (getting the status of a local ptp instance) is a quite > common and also simple use-case. And the simple case does work. > On a big

Re: [Linuxptp-users] pmc answering with more than asked for

2018-03-05 18:51 GMT+01:00 Richard Cochran : > > The pmc is really a simple tool. You can call it or script it for > simple use cases, but for more complex use cases, probably writing a > proper client is the way to go. > We might have a different perspective on

Re: [Linuxptp-users] pmc answering with more than asked for

On Mon, Mar 05, 2018 at 05:58:07PM +0100, Oliver Westermann wrote: > 2018-03-05 16:03 GMT+01:00 Richard Cochran : > > > > Do you mean using -b0 instead of -b1? > > > Using pmc to get the status of the local device and parsing it, which needs > to be much more > robust to

Re: [Linuxptp-users] pmc answering with more than asked for

2018-03-05 16:03 GMT+01:00 Richard Cochran : > > Do you mean using -b0 instead of -b1? > Using pmc to get the status of the local device and parsing it, which needs to be much more robust to unexpected data than I assumed in the first place. Is there an option to not get

Re: [Linuxptp-users] pmc answering with more than asked for

On Mon, Mar 05, 2018 at 12:42:27PM +0100, Oliver Westermann wrote: > Is there a reason this usecase (get data of local client) is not reflected > in the man page/readme? Well, no, there is no reason. The man pages don't explain everything. You could really write a whole book about using

Re: [Linuxptp-users] pmc answering with more than asked for

2018-03-01 21:37 GMT+01:00 Richard Cochran : > They should use -b0. They will from now, thanks :) And this appeared because some one on the local network did "get > port_data_set" with -b1 (or more). The responses will be passed > through one BC, and your local ptp4l

Re: [Linuxptp-users] pmc answering with more than asked for

On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 06:23:54PM +0100, Oliver Westermann wrote: > If 'pmc -u' is running on client A and client B and client A requests data > by eg 'GET CURRENT_DATA_SET', is it expected that there is output on > client B's pmc? It depends on the number of boundary hops. > I can't say for

[Linuxptp-users] pmc answering with more than asked for

Hey, Question first, if the answer is yes, the second part may be irrelevant: If 'pmc -u' is running on client A and client B and client A requests data by eg 'GET CURRENT_DATA_SET', is it expected that there is output on client B's pmc? Background for that question: I've a ptp setup that is