Re: [Linuxptp-users] HWTSTAMP_TX_ONESTEP_SYNC vs HWTSTAMP_TX_ON

[Ledda W. E. <Wil...@it...>]

Thanks Richard.

>From my understanding of the PTP protocol, the one-step clock is "significant" only for the MASTER, e.g. it doesn't send the FOLLOW_UP because the "tx timestamp" is included in the SYNC. Is it correct? 

I need to use the ptp only in slave.

Thanks

William

-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Cochran [mailto:ric...@gm...] 
Sent: 29 July 2013 13:13
To: Ledda William EXT
Cc: lin...@li...
Subject: Re: HWTSTAMP_TX_ONESTEP_SYNC vs HWTSTAMP_TX_ON

On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 08:51:58AM +0000, Ledda William EXT wrote:

> My question is: which is the real difference between HWTSTAMP_TX_ON 
> and HWTSTAMP_TX_ONESTEP_SYNC? I mean, what problems could I have if I 
> use a modified version without the HWTSTAMP_TX_ONESTEP_SYNC support?

This is just a number passed in the tx_type field of the SIOCSHWTSTAMP ioctl. It is only used if you set configuration option "twoStepFlag"
to false. So there is no harm in defining it in EXTRA_CFLAGS or in missing.h.

Thanks,
Richard