Re: [Linuxptp-users] HWTSTAMP_TX_ONESTEP_SYNC vs HWTSTAMP_TX_ON

[Keller, J. E <jac...@in...>]

It is not :(  the i210 is a newer part.

- Jake

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ledda William EXT [mailto:Wil...@it...]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2013 12:49 AM
> To: Keller, Jacob E; Richard Cochran
> Cc: lin...@li...
> Subject: RE: [Linuxptp-users] HWTSTAMP_TX_ONESTEP_SYNC vs
> HWTSTAMP_TX_ON
> 
> Sorry Jake, but I have a i350 not a i210. Is it true also for i350?
> 
> Thanks
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Keller, Jacob E [mailto:jac...@in...]
> Sent: 29 July 2013 21:12
> To: Richard Cochran
> Cc: Ledda William EXT; lin...@li...
> Subject: Re: [Linuxptp-users] HWTSTAMP_TX_ONESTEP_SYNC vs
> HWTSTAMP_TX_ON
> 
> On Mon, 2013-07-29 at 20:18 +0200, Richard Cochran wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 01:34:41PM +0000, Ledda William EXT wrote:
> > >
> > > 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?
> >
> > Yes and no.
> >
> > This statement is true for E2E delay mechanism.
> >
> > Theoretically, one step is also possible for the P2P mechanism, but I
> > don't think any hardware implements that yet (and neither does
> > linuxptp).
> >
> > HTH,
> > Richard
> 
> FYI, the i210 should have hardware support for doing onestep (no one
> enabled it) and it could be configured to do either sync, or p2p delay, but
> I don't believe it could do both. The i210 is configured by putting in an
> offset of where in the packet you want the timestamp to go, but you can't
> store different types of packets so it wouldn't work for P2P packets.
> 
> - Jake