From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Christian Riesch Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 0/8] ptp: IEEE 1588 hardware clock support Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2010 23:34:06 +0200 Message-ID: <4C9BC7CE.8020400@riesch.at> References: <1285268380.2587.11.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1285273684.2587.92.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20100923223417.4ed62e5b@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20100923223417.4ed62e5b@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Alan Cox Cc: Christoph Lameter , john stultz , Richard Cochran , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-api@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, Arnd Bergmann , David Miller , Krzysztof Halasa , Peter Zijlstra , Rodolfo Giometti , Thomas Gleixner List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org Alan Cox wrote: >> It implies clock tuning in userspace for a potential sub microsecond >> accurate clock. The clock accuracy will be limited by user space >> latencies and noise. You wont be able to discipline the system clock >> accurately. > > Noise matters, latency doesn't. Well put! That's why we need hardware support for PTP timestamping to reduce the noise, but get along well with the clock servo that is steering the PHC in user space. Christian