Re: [Linuxptp-users] rogue peer delay response caused by port_synchronize()

2023-03-27 Thread Merlin He
Hi Richard, Thank you, We are going to report this issue to Synopsys Richard Cochran 于2023年3月28日周二 11:27写道: > On Tue, Mar 28, 2023 at 10:57:43AM +0800, merlinhe wrote: > > Hi Miroslav, > > > > We use Synopsys's IP, the driver is the same as stmmac > > Yeah, the stmmac driver is crazy bad. > >

Re: [Linuxptp-users] rogue peer delay response caused by port_synchronize()

2023-03-27 Thread Richard Cochran
On Tue, Mar 28, 2023 at 10:57:43AM +0800, merlinhe wrote: > Hi Miroslav, > > We use Synopsys's IP, the driver is the same as stmmac Yeah, the stmmac driver is crazy bad. It is not clear to me whether setting the time when enabling time stamping is actually required by the IP core or not. But

Re: [Linuxptp-users] rogue peer delay response caused by port_synchronize()

2023-03-27 Thread merlinhe
Hi Miroslav, We use Synopsys's IP, the driver is the same as stmmac file: stmicro/stmmac/stmmac_main.c function: static int stmmac_hwtstamp_set(struct net_device *dev, struct ifreq *ifr) 692 /* initialize system time */ * 693 ktime_get_real_ts64();* 694 695 /* lower 32 bits of

Re: [Linuxptp-users] rogue peer delay response caused by port_synchronize()

2023-03-27 Thread Miroslav Lichvar
On Fri, Mar 24, 2023 at 03:46:49PM +0800, merlinhe wrote: > > port.port_initialize()->transport_open()->raw_open()->sk_timestamping_init()->hwts_init()->*ioctl(fd, > SIOCSHWTSTAMP)(eth driver set PHC to SYS(year 2000) in this ioctl)* That ioctl definitely shouldn't cause the PHC to be stepped.