On 03/16/2016 03:50 AM, Richard Cochran wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 04:14:32PM -0700, John Hubbard wrote:
>> Apologies if this has already been asked and answered. I tried to look for
>> solutions to my problem in the mailing list archive, but when I click the
>> list archive link on the mail
In general phch2sys can be used to synchronize two “POSIX” clocks. So you can
synchronize system clock with /dev/ptp0, /dev/ptp0 with system clock, or e.g.
/dev/ptp0 with /dev/ptp1 if you have two ptp devices.
For sure you can easily get the time from /dev/ptp0. You can look into the
ptp4l/ph2
On 03/16/2016 09:45 AM, Ledda William EXT wrote:
> What happens if you use SW time stamping instead of the HW one?
After changing the 'time_stamping' option in /etc/ptp4l.conf from
hardware to software and restarting ptp4l I now see much better
behavior. Below is the log output after giving it
On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 01:45:00PM -0700, John Hubbard wrote:
> If possible it would be really nice to get the HW time-stamping working on
> this system. I can move to another system if needed but getting this
> working would help me in the short term.
The best advice I know, would be to take the
On 03/16/2016 12:54 PM, Richard Cochran wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 10:20:35AM -0700, John Hubbard wrote:
>> After changing the 'time_stamping' option in /etc/ptp4l.conf from
>> hardware to software and restarting ptp4l I now see much better
>> behavior.
> Yes, but probably you are disappointe
On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 10:20:35AM -0700, John Hubbard wrote:
> After changing the 'time_stamping' option in /etc/ptp4l.conf from
> hardware to software and restarting ptp4l I now see much better
> behavior.
Yes, but probably you are disappointed having to forego the HW
synchronization performan
What happens if you use SW time stamping instead of the HW one? Can you try
compiling and installing manually the driver from Intel?
William
-Original Message-
From: John Hubbard [mailto:jhubb...@noao.edu]
Sent: 16 March 2016 16:39
To: linuxptp-users@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [
