linuxptp-users — Open discussion on using the linuxptp software.

Re: [Linuxptp-users] rogue peer delay response caused by port_synchronize()

[merlinhe <mer...@gm...>]

Hi Miroslav,

We use Synopsys's IP, the driver is the same as stmmac

file: stmicro/stmmac/stmmac_main.c
function: static int stmmac_hwtstamp_set(struct net_device *dev, struct
ifreq *ifr)

 692     /* initialize system time */

* 693     ktime_get_real_ts64(&now);* 694
 695     /* lower 32 bits of tv_sec are safe until y2106 */

* 696     stmmac_init_systime(priv, priv->ptpaddr, 697
(u32)now.tv_sec, now.tv_nsec);*

Miroslav Lichvar <mli...@re...> 于2023年3月27日周一 16:20写道：

> On Fri, Mar 24, 2023 at 03:46:49PM +0800, merlinhe wrote:
> >
> port.port_initialize()->transport_open()->raw_open()->sk_timestamping_init()->hwts_init()->*ioctl(fd,
> > SIOCSHWTSTAMP)(eth driver set PHC to SYS(year 2000) in this ioctl)*
>
> That ioctl definitely shouldn't cause the PHC to be stepped. What
> HW/driver is it?
>
> --
> Miroslav Lichvar
>
>

Re: [Linuxptp-users] rogue peer delay response caused by port_synchronize()

[Miroslav L. <mli...@re...>]

On Fri, Mar 24, 2023 at 03:46:49PM +0800, merlinhe wrote:
>  port.port_initialize()->transport_open()->raw_open()->sk_timestamping_init()->hwts_init()->*ioctl(fd,
> SIOCSHWTSTAMP)(eth driver set PHC to SYS(year 2000) in this ioctl)*

That ioctl definitely shouldn't cause the PHC to be stepped. What
HW/driver is it?

-- 
Miroslav Lichvar

Re: [Linuxptp-users] rogue peer delay response caused by port_synchronize()

[merlinhe <mer...@gm...>]

Hi Miroslav,

Thank you very much for your great help

After debugging for a few days, I found that it was the ethernet driver
that set PHC to SYS when processing ioctl.
we modified the driver and the problem fixed.

add some additional descriptions to this problem below:

ptp4l slave config(--step_threshold=0.0, --max_frequency=1000000)
before sync, slave_SYS(year 2000), master ts(year 2019)

ptp4l slave side events:
0  process SYNC
1  send PDELAY_REQ
2  process FUP
3  sync PHC to master(set PHC to year 2019, but SYS is still year 2000)
3  clock.servo.state = JUMP
4  set PDELAY_REQ to NULL in port_synchronize()
5  process PDELAY_RESP(bc_event return -1)
6  set port.state = FAULTY
7
 port.port_initialize()->transport_open()->raw_open()->sk_timestamping_init()->hwts_init()->*ioctl(fd,
SIOCSHWTSTAMP)(eth driver set PHC to SYS(year 2000) in this ioctl)*
8  port processes other msgs after init, but servo transfer to LOCK state
when next SYN/FUP come, PHC can only set max_frequency(1000000)


Miroslav Lichvar <mli...@re...> 于2023年3月21日周二 15:56写道：

> On Tue, Mar 21, 2023 at 10:17:56AM +0800, merlinhe wrote:
> > 1. after the first clock jumpping, PHC jumpped to master, SYS keep the
> > original value
> > 2. peer_delay_req set to NUL
> > 3. when the next peer_delay_resp arrives, the port enters the faulty
> state,
> > which cause the port reinited(PHC reset to SYS)
>
> By phc2sys? System clock shouldn't be used at all with HW
> timestamping.
>
> > 4. then the next SYNC, FUP arrives, the clock.servo enter LOCK state,
> >
> > Do you have any suggestions to fix this problem? Or do I need to change
> my
> > ptp4l configuration?
>
> It's not very clear to me what is the issue that you are trying to
> avoid.
>
> --
> Miroslav Lichvar
>
>

Re: [Linuxptp-users] rogue peer delay response caused by port_synchronize()

[Miroslav L. <mli...@re...>]

On Tue, Mar 21, 2023 at 10:17:56AM +0800, merlinhe wrote:
> 1. after the first clock jumpping, PHC jumpped to master, SYS keep the
> original value
> 2. peer_delay_req set to NUL
> 3. when the next peer_delay_resp arrives, the port enters the faulty state,
> which cause the port reinited(PHC reset to SYS)

By phc2sys? System clock shouldn't be used at all with HW
timestamping.

> 4. then the next SYNC, FUP arrives, the clock.servo enter LOCK state,
> 
> Do you have any suggestions to fix this problem? Or do I need to change my
> ptp4l configuration?

It's not very clear to me what is the issue that you are trying to
avoid.

-- 
Miroslav Lichvar

Re: [Linuxptp-users] rogue peer delay response caused by port_synchronize()

[merlinhe <mer...@gm...>]

Hi Miroslav,

Thank you very much for your clear explanation.
 I now understand why peer_delay_req needed to be set to NULL when clock
jumping(to avoid the corruption of delay measurement)

But I have another problem now,
With ptp4l.max_frequency limited to 1,000,000(to avoid PHC big jumpping
after first offset setting)
When this occured, PHC can only approching master very slowly(the clock
servo enters LOCK state)

1. after the first clock jumpping, PHC jumpped to master, SYS keep the
original value
2. peer_delay_req set to NUL
3. when the next peer_delay_resp arrives, the port enters the faulty state,
which cause the port reinited(PHC reset to SYS)
4. then the next SYNC, FUP arrives, the clock.servo enter LOCK state,

Do you have any suggestions to fix this problem? Or do I need to change my
ptp4l configuration?

thank you

Miroslav Lichvar <mli...@re...> 于2023年3月15日周三 16:03写道：

> On Wed, Mar 15, 2023 at 03:48:41PM +0800, merlinhe wrote:
> > Hello Team,
> >
> > I recently encountered a *rogue peer delay response* error which seemly
> > caused by function port_synchronize() reset peer_delay_req pointer.
> > I'd like to know why port_synchronize() reset p->peer_delay_req to NULL
> is
> > needed, can i comment this to avoid the rogue peer delay response error?
>
> The clock jumping in the middle of a peer delay measurement corrupts
> the result. Pretending there was no request is a simple solution to
> avoid accepting the response, although the error message is confusing.
>
> --
> Miroslav Lichvar
>
>

Re: [Linuxptp-users] PTP Bouncing between Grandmasters

[Richard C. <ric...@gm...>]

On Mon, Mar 20, 2023 at 07:43:00PM +0000, Chang, Benjamin via Linuxptp-users wrote:

> Does anyone know why the switch may be bounding between the actual
> grandmaster timesource and itself?

That would be a question for the switch vendor.

Thanks,
Richard

[Linuxptp-users] PTP Bouncing between Grandmasters

[Chang, B. <Ben...@gt...>]

I am trying to set up PTP between a server and switch. The Switch is the Mellanox SN2100 switch. I am trying to send the PTP to some clients on the switch.
The timesource on my server has  the lowest priority, while the server has a little higher value priority. The switch has priority greater than the server and then clients have priority in the 100s. They are all on the same domain.

Does anyone know why the switch may be bounding between the actual grandmaster timesource and itself? The server reaches the "uncalibrated" state on the switch before the switch syncs back to itself. The clients on the switch behalf the same way, bounding between syncing to the grandmaster and switch.

Thank you and any guidance would be appreciated

Benjamin Chang
Research Engineer II

[Linuxptp-users] BMCA for gPTP

[Pramod <pra...@gm...>]

Hello team,

I'd just like to confirm:

https://sourceforge.net/p/linuxptp/mailman/message/36955076/ - Is this
patch necessary to be applied to linuxptp 3.1 to ensure that we can have
BMCA with automotive ECUs and a 802.1AS compliant automotive switch?

Thanks very much,
Pramod

Re: [Linuxptp-users] rogue peer delay response caused by port_synchronize()

[Miroslav L. <mli...@re...>]

On Wed, Mar 15, 2023 at 03:48:41PM +0800, merlinhe wrote:
> Hello Team,
> 
> I recently encountered a *rogue peer delay response* error which seemly
> caused by function port_synchronize() reset peer_delay_req pointer.
> I'd like to know why port_synchronize() reset p->peer_delay_req to NULL is
> needed, can i comment this to avoid the rogue peer delay response error?

The clock jumping in the middle of a peer delay measurement corrupts
the result. Pretending there was no request is a simple solution to
avoid accepting the response, although the error message is confusing.

-- 
Miroslav Lichvar

[Linuxptp-users] rogue peer delay response caused by port_synchronize()

[merlinhe <mer...@gm...>]

Hello Team,

I recently encountered a *rogue peer delay response* error which seemly
caused by function port_synchronize() reset peer_delay_req pointer.
I'd like to know why port_synchronize() reset p->peer_delay_req to NULL is
needed, can i comment this to avoid the rogue peer delay response error?
Can anyone please help me?

the problematic packet timing is as follows

   1. client send pdelay_req
   2. client recv follow_up
   3. client enter port_synchronize, client clock servo enter jump state
   4. port_synchronize reset p->peer_delay_req to NULL
   5. client recv pdelay_resp
   6. client report rogue peer delay response
   7. client reinit port
   8. client servo enter lock state,

ptp4l log as follows,

* 202 ptp4l[3.143]: port 1: delay timeout* 203 ptp4l[3.147]: bc_event,
2613, idx(1)
 204 ptp4l[3.147]: process msg seq_id(16945)
 205 ptp4l[3.147]: bc_event, 2761, process FOLLOW_UP
 206 ptp4l[3.147]: port_syfufsm, 1251, sts(1), event(3)
 207 ptp4l[3.147]: port_synchronize, 1176, t1(1560257347787048846),
t2(946684803056837859), c1(0), c2(0)
 208 ptp4l[3.147]: port_synchronize, 1192, last_state(0), state(1)
* 209 ptp4l[3.147]: port_synchronize, 1212, peer_delay_req cleared*
 210 ptp4l[3.147]: bc_event, 2613, idx(0)
 211 ptp4l[3.147]: process msg seq_id(2)
 212 ptp4l[3.147]: bc_event, 2754, process PDELAY_RESP
* 213 ptp4l[3.147]: port 1: rogue peer delay response*
 214 ptp4l[3.147]: bc_event, 2757, process PDELAY_RESP failed
 215 ptp4l[3.148]: port 1: clearing fault immediately

*1158 static void port_synchronize(*)
1206   case SERVO_JUMP:
1207     port_dispatch(p, EV_SYNCHRONIZATION_FAULT, 0);
1208     flush_delay_req(p);




*1209     if (p->peer_delay_req) {1210
 msg_put(p->peer_delay_req);1211         p->peer_delay_req = NULL;1212
   pr_notice("%s, %d, peer_delay_req cleared", __FUNCTION__, __LINE__);1214
    }*

Best Regards
Merlin

Re: [Linuxptp-users] RHEL PTP Boundary Clock

[Miroslav L. <mli...@re...>]

On Tue, Mar 14, 2023 at 05:56:45PM +0000, Chang, Benjamin via Linuxptp-users wrote:
> When I try to add the other nic in the config file, it errors. It says it cant open the port of the nic to server 2.
> I tried running "sudo ptp4l -i nic2 -m" on command line and it does appear to broadcast ptp, but it's using a local clock as grandmaster and not my grandmaster.

The NICs don't have a common PTP clock. You need to enable the
boundary_clock_jbod option and run phc2sys in the automatic mode to
synchronize the PHCs to each other.

-- 
Miroslav Lichvar

[Linuxptp-users] RHEL PTP Boundary Clock

[Chang, B. <Ben...@gt...>]

Hello,

I am trying to set up my RHEL computer to be a boundary clock to other RHEL computers through a switch (Grandmaster --> Server 1 --> Switch --> Server 2).

I have server 1 synced to the grandmaster through one nic, nic 1. I am hoping to have server 2 sync to server 1 through another nic, nic 2. I am using wireshark to monitor the traffic on both nics and it appears server 1 isn't sending out ptp information. A lot of my configuration is the defaults and ptp4l is run through the following command: "sudo ptp4l -I <nic> -m." Using PMC, I verify it is synced to the grandmaster (as well as having the grandmaster be 5 minutes faster so my server 1's time changed).

When I try to add the other nic in the config file, it errors. It says it cant open the port of the nic to server 2.
I tried running "sudo ptp4l -i nic2 -m" on command line and it does appear to broadcast ptp, but it's using a local clock as grandmaster and not my grandmaster.

Am I forgetting something to make server 1 to output PTP as a boundary clock? I made sure the grandmaster has a lower priority and every preceding device has a higher priority. Additionally, I enabled the ptp firewalls on both servers.

And advice would be appreciated.
Thank you,

Benjamin Chang
Research Engineer II

Re: [Linuxptp-users] Set currentUtcOffsetValid in configuration file

[Richard C. <ric...@gm...>]

On Mon, Mar 13, 2023 at 10:29:55AM +0700, James Clark wrote:

> Would it make sense to set currentUtcOffsetValid to 1 if the TAI
> offset is set in the kernel to a non-zero value (which would typically
> come from running an NTP server)?

The time in the PHC is not necessarily connected to the Linux kernel
time.  If they are connected, for example by using phc2sys, then the
same scripts that control phc2sys can also control pmc to set
currentUtcOffsetValid appropriately.

> currentUtcOffsetValid=0 also triggers very broken behaviour in the
> Windows 11 PTP client: it will make it use a UTC offset of 0.

(I would report that on the M$ PTP mailing list, assuming there is one ;^)

Thanks,
Richard

Re: [Linuxptp-users] Set currentUtcOffsetValid in configuration file

[James C. <jj...@jc...>]

On Mon, Mar 13, 2023 at 9:07 AM Richard Cochran
<ric...@gm...> wrote:
>
>  The UTC
> offset can only be valid if the computer has access to the global time
> distribution system (ie GPS or NTP) and monitors leap second
> announcements in real time.
>
> A hard coded configuration setting would be morally wrong!

Would it make sense to set currentUtcOffsetValid to 1 if the TAI
offset is set in the kernel to a non-zero value (which would typically
come from running an NTP server)?

currentUtcOffsetValid=0 also triggers very broken behaviour in the
Windows 11 PTP client: it will make it use a UTC offset of 0.

James

Re: [Linuxptp-users] Set currentUtcOffsetValid in configuration file

[Richard C. <ric...@gm...>]

On Mon, Mar 13, 2023 at 01:31:56AM +0100, Georg Sauthoff wrote:

> However, I'm curious, is this a deliberate design decision to not provide
> a configuration setting for the currentUtcOffsetValid value, as well?
> Or is such configuration simply missing because nobody has bothered adding one?

This is very much a design decision that was made on purpose.  The UTC
offset can only be valid if the computer has access to the global time
distribution system (ie GPS or NTP) and monitors leap second
announcements in real time.

A hard coded configuration setting would be morally wrong!

Thanks,
Richard

[Linuxptp-users] Set currentUtcOffsetValid in configuration file

[Georg S. <ma...@gm...>]

Hello,

by default, ptp4l sends its PTP announce messages with currentUtcOffset
set to 37 and currentUtcOffsetValid set to 0.

AFAICS, there is no configuration file pragma for setting
currentUtcOffsetValid to 1 to make sure that ptp4l is always sending
all announce messages with that value.

I know that one can dynamically change a ptp4l's currentUtcOffsetValid
value after startup, i.e. by sending a GRANDMASTER_SETTINGS_NP like
this:

pmc -d 23 -u -s /var/run/ptp4l -b0  'SET GRANDMASTER_SETTINGS_NP clockClass 13
       	clockAccuracy 0x21 offsetScaledLogVariance 0xffff
       	currentUtcOffset 37 leap61 0 leap59 0 currentUtcOffsetValid 1   
       	ptpTimescale 1 timeTraceable 1 frequencyTraceable 0
       	timeSource 0x20'

However, I'm curious, is this a deliberate design decision to not provide
a configuration setting for the currentUtcOffsetValid value, as well?
Or is such configuration simply missing because nobody has bothered adding one?

I'm also asking because I observed several PTP slave devices ignoring the
transmitted currentUtcOffset when currentUtcOffsetValid is set to 0, even when
the transmitted currentUtcOffset matches their local default, i.e. the value such
devices would use when running as master.

For example:

- Solarflare PTPD (sfptpd), latest version, i.e. PHCs and system clock are
  running under TAI, by default (sfptpd has a configuration option to always
  use the transmitted offset, independent of the currentUtcOffsetValid flag)
- Cisco Nexus 93180YC-FX3, latest firmware, running as boundary clock, i.e.
  switch system clock is running under TAI (if set to PTP 'protocol') and its own
  announce messages also set currentUtcOffsetValid to 0

Thus, when running Linuxptp ptp4l as master with such clients, it would
be convenient to being able to simply set currentUtcOffsetValid to 1 in
the ptp4l configuration file and being done with it.

AFAICS, right now, to avoid that some third party PTP clients step to TAI when a
ptp4l starts until it receives a GRANDMASTER_SETTINGS_NP message,
one has to tweak the ptp4l's best master selection algorithm attributes
such that they are worse than the one of any client, such that those
clients don't select the newly started ptp4l as their master, yet.
Then the ptp4l startup job can send a GRANDMASTER_SETTINGS_NP with the right
currentUtcOffsetValid and - say - reset the clockClass value and
set priority1 via another management message, such that this ptp4l
is now safely selected as master by all the clients.

That necessary pmc call after startup could be done via the systemd
`ExecStartPost=` directive, when starting ptp4l via systemd. But perhaps
this would also need a sleep command before the pmc to avoid a race
condition between ptp4l starting up and creating the UDS socket and
systemd invoking pmc.

So all this is a bit tedious and errorprone, in comparison to a
possible currentUtcOffsetValid configuration file setting.


Best regards,
Georg

-- 
'BUGS
 So many numbers print out that its sometimes hard
 to figure out what to watch.' (vmstat(1), 3BSD, 1979)

Re: [Linuxptp-users] How to simultaneously work l2 and l3 clients

[Kamil Z. <zar...@av...>]

Hi

Thank you for the advice, however it seems that this feature doesn’t supported by my driver and/or kernel:

    $ sudo ip link property add dev eth1 altname eth1a
    RTNETLINK answers: Operation not supported

But I’ve patched linuxptp itself so I can append suffix to the interface in config and remove this suffix when working with sockets. So far so good, it seems that problem solved.

Regards,
Zaripov Kamil

> On 7 Mar 2023, at 17:28, Richard Cochran <ric...@gm...> wrote:
> 
> On Tue, Mar 07, 2023 at 12:41:52PM +0200, Kamil Zaripov wrote:
> 
>> I have a setup where master running on host with Intel I210 network
>> card and several slaves. Among them some can send PTP messages only
>> over UDP and some of them only over Ethernet. So I’m using two ptp4l
>> presses. One of them called with -2 command line argument and
>> another one with -4 and both of them use same port passed with -I
>> argument. Though I210 network card cannot concurrently timestamp two
>> packages.
>> 
>> This lead to the race - if both of ptp4l processes will send Sync
>> messages at the same time with hw tx timestamp request to gib driver
>> only one of them will get timestamp and another one will timeout
>> waiting for the timestamp.
>> 
>> Is it possible to sync ptp4l processes so they will not send Sync
>> messages simultaneously?
> 
> No, but why not run one process configured with two interfaces?
> 
> For example:
> 
> 	ip link property add dev eth1 altname eth1a
> 
> Then make a config. file:
> 
> 	[eth1]
> 	network_transport       UDPv4
> 	[eth1a]
> 	network_transport       L2
> 
> I think that should work for your use case.
> 
> HTH,
> Richard
> 

Re: [Linuxptp-users] How to simultaneously work l2 and l3 clients

[Richard C. <ric...@gm...>]

On Tue, Mar 07, 2023 at 12:41:52PM +0200, Kamil Zaripov wrote:

> I have a setup where master running on host with Intel I210 network
> card and several slaves. Among them some can send PTP messages only
> over UDP and some of them only over Ethernet. So I’m using two ptp4l
> presses. One of them called with -2 command line argument and
> another one with -4 and both of them use same port passed with -I
> argument. Though I210 network card cannot concurrently timestamp two
> packages.
>
> This lead to the race - if both of ptp4l processes will send Sync
> messages at the same time with hw tx timestamp request to gib driver
> only one of them will get timestamp and another one will timeout
> waiting for the timestamp.
>
> Is it possible to sync ptp4l processes so they will not send Sync
> messages simultaneously?

No, but why not run one process configured with two interfaces?

For example:

	ip link property add dev eth1 altname eth1a

Then make a config. file:

	[eth1]
	network_transport       UDPv4
	[eth1a]
	network_transport       L2

I think that should work for your use case.

HTH,
Richard

[Linuxptp-users] How to simultaneously work l2 and l3 clients

[Kamil Z. <zar...@av...>]

Hi,

I have a setup where master running on host with Intel I210 network card and several slaves. Among them some can send PTP messages only over UDP and some of them only over Ethernet. So I’m using two ptp4l presses. One of them called with -2 command line argument and another one with -4 and both of them use same port passed with -I argument. Though I210 network card cannot concurrently timestamp two packages.

This lead to the race - if both of ptp4l processes will send Sync messages at the same time with hw tx timestamp request to gib driver only one of them will get timestamp and another one will timeout waiting for the timestamp.

Is it possible to sync ptp4l processes so they will not send Sync messages simultaneously?

Regards,
Zaripov Kamil.

[Linuxptp-users] I would like to make an inquiry.

[강천우 <cjs...@na...>]

Hello, I'm inquiring.
1. I want to check the time difference between slaves in PTP. Is there a way to check?
2. Based on PTP, it was confirmed that the OFFSET between MASTER and SLAVE was less than 1 microsecond. Can you check the offset between the slave and the slave?
3. I did the broadcast test and the multicast test.The difference in data reception time between the slave and the slave was measured as an average of 80 microseconds. Is this right? Since the offset between the master and the slave is less than 1 microsecond, I think the time difference between the slave and the slave should be measured less than 1 microsecond.

[Linuxptp-users] Does PTP4l process get interrupted regularly

[ravi d. <rkd...@gm...>]

Hi,

I have launched PTP4l from another process on Linux.
I have been observing SIGCHLD continuously received by the parent process.

I understand, it's not due to exit or termination.

Is it because, ptp process interrupts and resumes.
If yes, could you please let me know the reason.

Thanks and Regards
Ravi

Re: [Linuxptp-users] Pps output

[Miroslav L. <mli...@re...>]

On Mon, Feb 20, 2023 at 09:48:08AM +0000, Alexis Chatail--Rigolleau (Student at CentraleSupelec) wrote:
> Hi,
> I have achieved ptp sync with my 2 linux devices which have 1 Intel xxv710 network adapter each. However I want to see a pps output to see how well my signals are alined.
> 
> If my network adapter can provide a pps output on its SMA pins, how cam I enable it ?

In the source code of the Linux kernel there is a "testptp" utility in
tools/testing/selftests/ptp. It has -L option to configure PPS input
or output.

-- 
Miroslav Lichvar

Re: [Linuxptp-users] message rates on G.8275.1

[Miroslav L. <mli...@re...>]

On Mon, Feb 20, 2023 at 06:42:08PM +0530, Aditya Venu wrote:
> Doesn't ptp4l take the domain Number from default.cfg?

Only if you specify it as a config with the -f option.

The default.cfg file is provided in linuxptp to show the default
values of all options. It's not normally expected to be used as the
real config. It doesn't change anything.

-- 
Miroslav Lichvar

Re: [Linuxptp-users] message rates on G.8275.1

[Aditya V. <adi...@5g...>]

Doesn't ptp4l take the domain Number from default.cfg?

On Mon, Feb 20, 2023 at 4:36 PM Aditya Venu <adi...@5g...>
wrote:

> In default.cfg, I kept the domain number as 24 and ran sudo ./ptp4l -f
> configs/G.8275.1.cfg -i eth0 -2 -m.
>
> The message rates changed, but domain number is not changing to 24.
>
> On Mon, Feb 20, 2023 at 4:30 PM Aditya Venu <adi...@5g...>
> wrote:
>
>> Got it I was using v2.0 where message rates aren't specified. Switched to
>> 3.1 branch, working fine
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Aditya.
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 20, 2023 at 4:23 PM Miroslav Lichvar <mli...@re...>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, Feb 20, 2023 at 04:14:46PM +0530, Aditya Venu via Linuxptp-users
>>> wrote:
>>> > I ran sudo ./ptp4l -f configs/G.8275.1 -i eth0 -2 -m
>>>
>>> It should be -f configs/G.8275.1.cfg. The file specifies
>>> the domain 24, the L2 transport, sync interval of 1/16s, and other
>>> G.8275.1 settings.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Miroslav Lichvar
>>>
>>>

-- 


Disclaimer:- This footer text is to convey that this email is sent by one 
of the users of IITH. So, do not mark it as SPAM.

Re: [Linuxptp-users] message rates on G.8275.1

[Aditya V. <adi...@5g...>]

In default.cfg, I kept the domain number as 24 and ran sudo ./ptp4l -f
configs/G.8275.1.cfg -i eth0 -2 -m.

The message rates changed, but domain number is not changing to 24.

On Mon, Feb 20, 2023 at 4:30 PM Aditya Venu <adi...@5g...>
wrote:

> Got it I was using v2.0 where message rates aren't specified. Switched to
> 3.1 branch, working fine
>
> Thanks,
> Aditya.
>
> On Mon, Feb 20, 2023 at 4:23 PM Miroslav Lichvar <mli...@re...>
> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Feb 20, 2023 at 04:14:46PM +0530, Aditya Venu via Linuxptp-users
>> wrote:
>> > I ran sudo ./ptp4l -f configs/G.8275.1 -i eth0 -2 -m
>>
>> It should be -f configs/G.8275.1.cfg. The file specifies
>> the domain 24, the L2 transport, sync interval of 1/16s, and other
>> G.8275.1 settings.
>>
>> --
>> Miroslav Lichvar
>>
>>

-- 


Disclaimer:- This footer text is to convey that this email is sent by one 
of the users of IITH. So, do not mark it as SPAM.