Re: [Linuxptp-devel] [PATCH RFC 1/5] Rename NSEC2SEC as NSEC_PER_SEC

2023-06-07 Thread Rahul Rameshbabu via Linuxptp-devel
On Wed, 07 Jun, 2023 18:04:08 +0200 Maciek Machnikowski wrote: > On 6/7/2023 17:03, Erez wrote: >> >> >> On Wed, 7 Jun 2023 at 00:09, Rahul Rameshbabu via Linuxptp-devel >> > > wrote: >> >> The name NSEC2SEC implies converting nanoseconds to sec

Re: [Linuxptp-devel] [PATCH] Use the 802.1AS peer delay computation when transportSpecific is 1

2023-06-07 Thread Dylan Robinson
On Wed, 7 Jun 2023 17:26:08 +0200, Erez wrote: > Hi, > > We tie patches by using the version, so version 2 is named: "[PATCH v2]" > We use "git format-patch -v2" > And add "--cover-letter" in case of several commits. > > Next time :-) > > Erez Hi Erez, Understood. Thank you for letting me know.

Re: [Linuxptp-devel] [PATCH RFC 1/5] Rename NSEC2SEC as NSEC_PER_SEC

2023-06-07 Thread Maciek Machnikowski
On 6/7/2023 17:03, Erez wrote: > > > On Wed, 7 Jun 2023 at 00:09, Rahul Rameshbabu via Linuxptp-devel > > wrote: > > The name NSEC2SEC implies converting nanoseconds to seconds, but the > value > used for the macro converts seconds to n

Re: [Linuxptp-devel] [PATCH] Use the 802.1AS peer delay computation when transportSpecific is 1

2023-06-07 Thread Erez
Hi, We tie patches by using the version, so version 2 is named: "[PATCH v2]" We use "git format-patch -v2" And add "--cover-letter" in case of several commits. Next time :-) Erez On Tue, 6 Jun 2023 at 21:28, Dylan Robinson wrote: > If the transportSpecific value is configured to be 1, compu

Re: [Linuxptp-devel] [PATCH RFC 1/5] Rename NSEC2SEC as NSEC_PER_SEC

2023-06-07 Thread Erez
On Wed, 7 Jun 2023 at 00:09, Rahul Rameshbabu via Linuxptp-devel < linuxptp-devel@lists.sourceforge.net> wrote: > The name NSEC2SEC implies converting nanoseconds to seconds, but the value > used for the macro converts seconds to nanoseconds. NSEC_PER_SEC is the > accurate name for this macro. >

Re: [Linuxptp-devel] [PATCH] Use the peerDelay computation specified in 802.1AS when transportSpecific value is 1 and the clock domain is 0.

2023-06-07 Thread Dylan Robinson
On Tue, 6 Jun 2023 14:24:20 -0400, Dylan Robinson wrote: > I guess what this all is trying to convey is that since peer delay > messages from a non-zero clock domain, are required to be invoked on > domain 0 when their transportSpecific value is 1, if we see a non-zero > domain number in a peer de