Re: [Linuxptp-users] Is there any interface between ptp driver and linuxptp for controlling the ptp hardware?

[Takahiro S. <tsh...@gm...>]

Hello

I confirmed it to the engineer.
It seems the mistake of EG20T datasheet.
Destination MAC address is compared with station address registers.

However there are no interface between linuxptp and ptp driver.
I will use another solution.

I will use the same station address as linuxptp in EG20T ptp driver like
below.

#define DEFAULT_MULTICAST_MAC_ADDR "01:00:5e:00:01:81" // This is the same
as "224.0.1.129".

pch_probe(struct pci_dev *pdev, const struct pci_device_id *id)
:
pch_set_station_address(DEFAULT_MULTICAST_MAC_ADDR, pdev);

I think this is simple and good way now.

Thanks and Best regards,
Takahiro Shimizu

2012/3/14 Takahiro Shimizu <tsh...@gm...>

> Hello,
>
> Thank you for the response.
>
> However, if I set the station address as 0, I can not get the timestamp...
> I will ask it to the EG20T hardware engineer.
>
> Thanks and Best regards,
> Takahiro Shimizu
>
> 2012/3/13 Richard Cochran <ric...@gm...>
>
>> On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 04:27:54PM +0900, Takahiro Shimizu wrote:
>> > EG20T ieee1588 hardware needs destination MAC address to capture the ptp
>> > message.
>> > I implement it in ptp_pch_probe function now.
>> > The usage is like below:
>> > insmod ptp_pch.ko station="01:00:5e:00:01:81"
>> > This is good if the MAC address is unicast. Because it is known already.
>> > However it is NG if the MAC address is multicast. Because it is decided
>> > when the linuxptp is started.
>>
>> Why do you need to set the station address?
>>
>> According to the EG20T Datasheet (Intel 3242111-006US), the station
>> address fields are not used. In Table 617, page 523, "PTP Frame
>> Identification", the MAC addresses are not used at all.
>>
>> Just leave the station address registers as zero.
>>
>> > So, I want to add the new command between ptp driver and linuxptp.
>> > One possibility is to define the new ioctl of socket interface.
>> > However it needs to change gbe, ptp driver and linuxptp.
>> > Another possibility is to use the interface between ptp driver and
>> linuxptp.
>> > It seems simple.
>> > However I can not see any direct interface between ptp driver and
>> linuxptp.
>> >
>> > Question:
>> > 1. Which is better to add the new command for ptp driver?
>> > 2. Is it possible to add new interface between ptp driver and linuxptp
>> > (e.g. ioctl)?
>> > 3. Does anyone have other better idea?
>>
>> I don't see any need for such an interface.
>>
>> Richard
>>
>
>