Re: [PATCH net-next v3 0/6] ptp: Support hardware clocks with additional free running cycle counter

[Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>]

On Sun,  1 May 2022 13:18:30 +0200 Gerhard Engleder wrote:
> ptp vclocks require a clock with free running time for the timecounter.
> Currently only a physical clock forced to free running is supported.
> If vclocks are used, then the physical clock cannot be synchronized
> anymore. The synchronized time is not available in hardware in this
> case. As a result, timed transmission with TAPRIO hardware support
> is not possible anymore.
> 
> If hardware would support a free running time additionally to the
> physical clock, then the physical clock does not need to be forced to
> free running. Thus, the physical clocks can still be synchronized while
> vclocks are in use.
> 
> The physical clock could be used to synchronize the time domain of the
> TSN network and trigger TAPRIO. In parallel vclocks can be used to
> synchronize other time domains.
> 
> One year ago I thought for two time domains within a TSN network also
> two physical clocks are required. This would lead to new kernel
> interfaces for asking for the second clock, ... . But actually for a
> time triggered system like TSN there can be only one time domain that
> controls the system itself. All other time domains belong to other
> layers, but not to the time triggered system itself. So other time
> domains can be based on a free running counter if similar mechanisms
> like 2 step synchroisation are used.
> 
> Synchronisation was tested with two time domains between two directly
> connected hosts. Each host run two ptp4l instances, the first used the
> physical clock and the second used the virtual clock. I used my FPGA
> based network controller as network device. ptp4l was used in
> combination with the virtual clock support patches from Miroslav
> Lichvar.

The netdev parts looks sane, I think.

Richard? Let me also add Willem, Jonathan and Martin.