I'm thinking to upgrade to kernel 3.x and deploy PHC with 1588-capable MAC/PHY in the longer term.
Meanwhile, I might get started with software timestamping in a Linux kernel version 2.6.30+ and just wanted to double check that I don't have to back port the PHC and can safely ignore the phc2sys program in this case? Only changes to PTP protocol stack in the user space will be necessary, i.e. to the ptp4l end in terms of getting timestamps and custom clock control, and optionally pmc? My platform has TX/RX FPGA-based hardware timestamping from a NIC. The system clock is synchronized with PTP first, then the NIC clock is synchronized to the system clock, in reverse sync direction in comparison to the PHC hardware timestamping. Thanks again. Daniel -----Original Message----- From: Keller, Jacob E [mailto:jacob.e.kel...@intel.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2014 4:35 PM To: linuxptp-devel@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [Linuxptp-devel] linuxptp in kernel 2.6.30+? Hi, Regarding changes to the ptp4l protocol stack, you would have to change this if you changed the API in any way, there would need to be modifications to the ptp4l end. I think someone from Redhat may be able to answer your question about the backport of the PHC subsystem better. You might try searching for CentOS, as that may have been the source of the kernel. I don't know if we had an explicit conversation about backporting, but as Richard said, it is not as trivial as you might think. Thanks, Jake On Tue, 2014-06-03 at 19:25 +0000, Daniel Le wrote: > I browsed both the linuxptp devel and user mail archives, but couldn't see > any email thread about RHEL back porting of linuxptp and ethtool. Perhaps I > didn't look at the right places or missed it. Does someone know where the > relevant information is located? I would much appreciate to learn about the > specific issues of back porting in the past and how they were solved or still > remain unsolved? Does 'buggy' refer to the PTP protocol itself or accuracy > achievement or both? > > For deployment with software timestamping, there is no need to back port the > PHC and to run the phc2sys program. Is that correct? And changes to PTP > protocol stack in the user space are necessary if an implementation does not > make use of SO_TIMESTAMPING socket, but have instead some non-generic TX/RX > FPGA-based hardware timestamping. > > Thanks! > Daniel > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > -------- Learn Graph Databases - Download FREE O'Reilly Book "Graph > Databases" is the definitive new guide to graph databases and their > applications. Written by three acclaimed leaders in the field, this > first edition is now available. Download your free book today! > http://p.sf.net/sfu/NeoTech > _______________________________________________ > Linuxptp-devel mailing list > Linuxptp-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linuxptp-devel ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Learn Graph Databases - Download FREE O'Reilly Book "Graph Databases" is the definitive new guide to graph databases and their applications. Written by three acclaimed leaders in the field, this first edition is now available. Download your free book today! http://p.sf.net/sfu/NeoTech _______________________________________________ Linuxptp-devel mailing list Linuxptp-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linuxptp-devel ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ HPCC Systems Open Source Big Data Platform from LexisNexis Risk Solutions Find What Matters Most in Your Big Data with HPCC Systems Open Source. Fast. Scalable. Simple. Ideal for Dirty Data. Leverages Graph Analysis for Fast Processing & Easy Data Exploration http://www.hpccsystems.com _______________________________________________ Linuxptp-devel mailing list Linuxptp-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linuxptp-devel
