From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-pl0-f67.google.com ([209.85.160.67]:39846 "EHLO mail-pl0-f67.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753627AbeCUV01 (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 Mar 2018 17:26:27 -0400 Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2018 14:26:23 -0700 From: Richard Cochran To: "Keller, Jacob E" Cc: "netdev@vger.kernel.org" , "devicetree@vger.kernel.org" , Andrew Lunn , David Miller , Florian Fainelli , Mark Rutland , Miroslav Lichvar , Rob Herring , Willem de Bruijn Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next RFC V1 1/5] net: Introduce peer to peer one step PTP time stamping. Message-ID: <20180321212623.r6tmqts2n4npa5ki@localhost> References: <60ae964d6a0da497bcac1d3fdb5b3fe01f5d70f1.1521656774.git.richardcochran@gmail.com> <02874ECE860811409154E81DA85FBB5882D02105@ORSMSX115.amr.corp.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <02874ECE860811409154E81DA85FBB5882D02105@ORSMSX115.amr.corp.intel.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 08:05:36PM +0000, Keller, Jacob E wrote: > I am guessing that we expect all devices which support onestep P2P messages, will always support onestep SYNC as well? Yes. Anything else doesn't make sense, don't you think? Also, reading 1588, it isn't clear whether supporting only 1-step Sync without 1-step P2P is even intended. There is only a "one-step clock", and it is described as doing both. Thanks, Richard