Re: [PATCH v3 net-next 00/17] PTP support for the SJA1105 DSA driver

[Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@gmail.com>]

On Wed, 5 Jun 2019 at 20:50, Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 5 Jun 2019 at 20:45, Richard Cochran <richardcochran@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 05, 2019 at 02:33:52PM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> > > In the meantime: Richard, do you have any objections to this patchset?
> >
> > I like the fact that you didn't have to change the dsa or ptp
> > frameworks this time around.  I haven't taken a closer look than that
> > yet.
> >
> > > I was wondering whether the path delay difference between E2E and P2P
> > > rings any bell to you.
> >
> > Can it be that the switch applies corrections in HW?
> >
>
> Yes it can be. It was one of the first things I thought of.
> Normally it updates the correction field with its own residence time
> in 1-step L2 event messages (but I use 2 step).
> It also has a bit called IGNORE2STF (ignore 2-step flag) by which it
> updates the correction field in all L2 event messages (including sync,
> thereby violating the spec for a switch, as far as I'm aware). But I'm
> not setting it.
> I also looked at egress frames with wireshark and the correction field is zero.
>

I also changed around the values of ptp_dst_mac and p2p_dst_mac in
linuxptp in the hope that I'd throw off whatever hardware parser it
has to identify the event frames, but I still get negative path delay
with E2E nonetheless. So it's probably not that.

> > Thanks,
> > Richard
>
> Thanks,
> -Vladimir

-Vladimir