On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 06:17:46PM +, Duncan wrote:
I don't know why you don't implement this,
Why?
Because I don't have unlimited time to work on ptp4l for free.
Thanks,
Rihcard
--
Jiri Benc jbenc@... writes:
On Wed, 2 Apr 2014 18:15:27 +0200, Richard Cochran wrote:
+/*
+ * Send message to the given address. This is intended for
management
+ * messages only, thus goes always to the general port.
There are a couple of unicast options for PTP. We should try
Dear Richard,
my linux kernel is 3.0, and my phy is DP83640, and my mac is stmmac,
and my cpu is arm， i just cross-compile the linuxptp, and it seems ok, but
when i run it and use hardware timestamp (./ptp4l - H -i eth0 -p
/dev/ptp0) on my system, the kernel crashed.
so, i just see
On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 09:53:20AM +0100, Jiri Benc wrote:
+/*
+ * Send message to the given address. This is intended for management
+ * messages only, thus goes always to the general port.
There are a couple of unicast options for PTP. We should try to make
this new interface in a way that
On Wed, 2 Apr 2014 18:15:27 +0200, Richard Cochran wrote:
+/*
+ * Send message to the given address. This is intended for management
+ * messages only, thus goes always to the general port.
There are a couple of unicast options for PTP. We should try to make
this new interface in a way
