RE: [PATCH net-next RFC V1 1/5] net: Introduce peer to peer one step PTP time stamping.

Keller, Jacob E
2018-03-21T23:51:27Z

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Richard Cochran [mailto:richardcochran@gmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2018 2:26 PM
> To: Keller, Jacob E <jacob.e.keller@intel.com>
> Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org; devicetree@vger.kernel.org; Andrew Lunn
> <andrew@lunn.ch>; David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>; Florian Fainelli
> <f.fainelli@gmail.com>; Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>; Miroslav
> Lichvar <mlichvar@redhat.com>; Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>; Willem de
> Bruijn <willemb@google.com>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next RFC V1 1/5] net: Introduce peer to peer one step
> PTP time stamping.
>
> 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

This was my understanding as well, but given the limited hardware which can do sync but not pdelay messages, I just wanted to make sure we were on the same page.

Thanks,
Jake