On Tue, Dec 03, 2013 at 09:33:21PM +0000, Keller, Jacob E wrote: > > I like this idea. I also think if we supported the "push" updates from > ptp4l, where ptp4l sends data over the management interface it would > enable the phc2sys to update it's internal state without requiring > polling as it could update whenever it receives data on the management > socket.
Right, I like the push idea too, and for me it has higher priority than removing the static port array. > I do think that, while this is not in spec, it would be very useful for > boards which don't support boundary clock due to design. Obviously there > is some precision impact.. I am curious how difficult it would be to > measure that. Here is one way to measure the time error in the second PHC device. Attached two port to a grand master via a transparent switch. Run ptp4l on one port normally and use phc2sys to discipline the second port. Then, on the second port start another ptp4l but in free running mode. +--------+ +--------+ +--------+-------------------------+ | | | |----| Port 1 | ptp4l, phc2sys to port2 | | GM |---| TC | +--------+ | | | | |----| Port 2 | ptp4l free running | +--------+ +--------+ +--------+-------------------------+ Thanks, Richard ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Sponsored by Intel(R) XDK Develop, test and display web and hybrid apps with a single code base. Download it for free now! http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=111408631&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk _______________________________________________ Linuxptp-devel mailing list Linuxptp-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linuxptp-devel
