Re: [PATCH 2/3] app/testpmd: enabled control for packet timestamps

[Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>]

28/04/2017 02:19, Wu, Jingjing:
> > 25/04/2017 16:02, Wu, Jingjing:
> > > From: Oleg Kuporosov
> > > > Implemented two methods of control
> > > >
> > > > - by --enable-timestamps CL testpmd application we can enable
> > timestamping
> > > >   for all ports;
> > > > - in interactive mode port config <port> timestamps on|off is able to
> > > >   configure timestamping per specific port.
> > > >
> > > > The control doesn't interact with IEEE1588 PTP implementation there
> > > > as it is under macro compilation but can be extended in the future.
> > > >
> > > > This feature is required for debugging/testing purposes for real
> > > > time HW packet timestamping.
> > >
> > > We have ieee1588fwd.c to demo the timesync enable/disable, can we
> > > reuse The fwd engine instead of defining new commands?
> > 
> > Yes for IEEE1588 feature, we should use app/test-pmd/ieee1588fwd.c.
> > 
> > There is more to say about this feature.
> > 
> > The main goal of this patchset was to add a timestamp in the mbuf.
> > It has been done by another patchset in 17.05.
> 
> OK. But it is not clear now what is the timestamp for, right?

Olivier can comment on the Rx timestamp (PKT_RX_TIMESTAMP).

Please Jingjing (or Pablo or Daniel),
could you explain the relation with PKT_TX_IEEE1588_TMST?

> > Do we know how to test this timestamp in testpmd?
> 
> Mbuf dump can show this value. The problem is if we can use the
> rte_eth_timesync_enable/disable to indicate the timestamp
> is in mbuf or not.

Please could you describe the problem?

> > About IEEE1588 feature, why is there a config option?
> > 	CONFIG_RTE_LIBRTE_IEEE1588
> > A feature should never be disabled at compile time.
> > There is also a runtime enablement with rte_eth_timesync_enable().
> > 
> > I think we need some discussions here.
> 
> Yes, I agree.

What is your opinion?
What prevents from removing CONFIG_RTE_LIBRTE_IEEE1588?