So it seems the card timestamps FOLLOW_UP and DELAY_RESP packets, but does not timestamp SYNC packets. Why could this be? Can it somehow mismatch SYNC and FOLLOW_UP messages in the chip and stamp the wrong one? (I think FOLLOW_UP stamps are not good for anything, are they?). Or is it still some problem with ptp4l not reading the socket?No, no, NO!The msg_sots_missing() function checks the message type. It always returns FALSE (zero) for non-event messages like FOLLOW_UP.
You're right, Richard, I misunderstood what the if-branch does. So I went further in sk.c and verified that the control messages read when receiving SYNC packets do not contain the SO_TIMSTAMPING control message. I further verified that the setsockopt for SO_TIMESTAMPING succeeds and is called with flags=69, which is RX_HARDWARE+TX_HARDWARE+RAW_HARDWARE and that the SIOCSHWTSTAMP succeeds setting rx_filter 12 (HWTSTAMP_FILTER_PTP_V2_EVENT). So from the setup point of view, everything seems correct to me.
Thanks, Martin
smime.p7s
Description: Elektronicky podpis S/MIME
_______________________________________________ Linuxptp-users mailing list Linuxptp-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linuxptp-users
