On Wed, 5 Nov 2014 17:34:23 +0100, Richard Cochran wrote: > I like the idea of "automatic" phc2sys, if it would only work right.
It's definitely not complete yet and I'm not surprised there are bugs (although I did my best to support also future cases, it's hard to get it right without the actual code to test it). My plan for the next steps has been allowing ptp4l to work with multiple independent PHCs that would form a PTP clock (and rely on phc2sys to sync those PHCs). This needs separation of struct clock into two structures, as some fields are per-PTP clock and some are per-PHC. I have a patch that does this but it needs to be rebased. I think this is a prerequisite to having a boundary clock that uses multiple PHCs, I cannot imagine how it could work without this separation. What is not solved is the problem that Miroslav pointed out (and also pointed out to me earlier): the sync messages cannot be sent until the clock is really synced. This will need further communication between ptp4l and phc2sys. I still intend to work on this but have less time to work on linuxptp than before. Jiri -- Jiri Benc ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Linuxptp-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linuxptp-devel
