From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] app/testpmd: enabled control for
	packet	timestamps
Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 11:12:29 +0200
Message-ID: <7967304.9Aej4IakVR@xps>
References: <1476369308-17021-1-git-send-email-olegk@mellanox.com>
 <5493210.cW0TSkhqM8@xps>
 <9BB6961774997848B5B42BEC655768F810D59753@SHSMSX103.ccr.corp.intel.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Cc: dev@dpdk.org, Oleg Kuporosov <olegk@mellanox.com>, olivier.matz@6wind.com
To: "Wu, Jingjing" <jingjing.wu@intel.com>,
 Daniel Mrzyglod <danielx.t.mrzyglod@intel.com>,
 Pablo de Lara <pablo.de.lara.guarch@intel.com>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from out4-smtp.messagingengine.com (out4-smtp.messagingengine.com
 [66.111.4.28]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 266419E3
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Fri, 28 Apr 2017 11:12:30 +0200 (CEST)
In-Reply-To: <9BB6961774997848B5B42BEC655768F810D59753@SHSMSX103.ccr.corp.intel.com>
List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org
Sender: "dev" <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>

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?