Hello List,
I understand that linuxptp code base as is requires Linux kernel version 3.0 or
newer. For platforms where kernel 3.x is not yet available, is it possible to
backport linuxptp into a kernel 2.6.30+? If so, what would need to be done?
Does it make sense to modify the hardware abstrac
On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 04:07:38PM +, Daniel Le wrote:
> I understand that linuxptp code base as is requires Linux kernel
> version 3.0 or newer. For platforms where kernel 3.x is not yet
> available, is it possible to backport linuxptp into a kernel
> 2.6.30+?
(Everything is possible.)
> If
On Mon, 2014-06-02 at 18:19 +0200, Richard Cochran wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 04:07:38PM +, Daniel Le wrote:
> > I understand that linuxptp code base as is requires Linux kernel
> > version 3.0 or newer. For platforms where kernel 3.x is not yet
> > available, is it possible to backport l
On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 09:02:16PM +, Keller, Jacob E wrote:
>
> Redhat did a semi-decent job in their RHEL 6.4, and 6.5 kernels. I've
> tested ptp4l against them, and it mostly works.
Wasn't someone asking about the RH backport on the linuxptp lists a
while back, with some unresolved problem
On Tue, 3 Jun 2014 09:33:28 +0200, Richard Cochran wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 09:02:16PM +, Keller, Jacob E wrote:
> > Redhat did a semi-decent job in their RHEL 6.4, and 6.5 kernels. I've
> > tested ptp4l against them, and it mostly works.
>
> Wasn't someone asking about the RH backport
On Tue, Jun 03, 2014 at 09:53:51AM +0200, Jiri Benc wrote:
>
> I would be very interested in such problems. RHEL 6.4 support was buggy
> (and it was not unexpected, we marked it as Tech Preview for a reason)
IIRC, the earlier post was about RHEL 6.4.
The reason I mentioned the RH and TI back por
On Tue, 3 Jun 2014 10:24:16 +0200, Richard Cochran wrote:
> The reason I mentioned the RH and TI back ports was not to make
> anybody look bad. Rather, I am trying to suggest that making a working
> back port to 2.6.30 is not as easy as it sounds.
This is something I can very much agree with :-)
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
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
On Tue, Jun 03, 2014 at 07:25:29PM +, 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 relevan
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
On Mon, Jun 09, 2014 at 03:53:37PM +, Daniel Le wrote:
>
> 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?
When ptp4
12 matches
Mail list logo
