Re: [Linuxptp-users] ptp4l stack integration via linux OS with least burden on the Firmware and major PTP offload to the hardware

2017-04-14 Thread MSR, CHANDRASEKHAR
Hi Jake, I appreciate your feedback. Yes - our hardware and most of other hardware supports 'timestamp all' - an easier option for the software as you mention. However, it is not always the case for different customers - • given the encapsulations such as MPLS-TP beyond the linux

Re: [Linuxptp-users] ptp4l stack integration via linux OS with least burden on the Firmware and major PTP offload to the hardware

2017-04-14 Thread MSR, CHANDRASEKHAR
Hi Richard, Thank you a lot for responding to my question though you could have easily shut me off, given the 'off topic' nature of the question. I need some basic clarificaions from your response. You say " IMHO this is only reasonable approach for modern MAC hardware" & " Nonsense. The

Re: [Linuxptp-users] ptp4l stack integration via linux OS with least burden on the Firmware and major PTP offload to the hardware

2017-04-12 Thread Richard Cochran
Chandra, Your question has nothing to do with linuxptp (user space stack) or even with the Linux kernel, and as such it is off topic for this list. Having said that, I cannot resist offering an opinion... > A simple solution is timestamping all the packets and making the dma > flow uniform to