Re: [Linuxptp-users] Hardware PTP clock synchronization

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

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Гаврилов Александр [mailto:le...@im...]
> Sent: Thursday, August 01, 2013 12:55 AM
> To: lin...@li...
> Subject: [Linuxptp-users] Hardware PTP clock synchronization
> 
> Hello!
> 
> I encountered a problem while obtaining the time from the adapter Intel
> pro1000 (82576).
> I use Fedora 18 kernel version 3.9.6.
> The values of the time I get through clock_gettime (id, timevalue) for the
> device / dev/ptp0.
> The source of the PTP packet is switch Hirschmann MAR1140. Wireshark
> shows the presence of all necessary for the implementation of the
> protocol PTP packets at the input adapter interface,
> but the time in the PTP counters are not adjusted in accordance with the
> values ​​of the packages.
> I compiled linuxptp-1.2 downloaded from
> http://linuxptp.sourceforge.net/ and run the following commands:
> 
> Hardware timestamping:
> 
> # ptp4l -i p16p1 -p /dev/ptp0 -m -2 -H
> 

Also please re-try with -P, for peer to peer delay mechanism. The 82576 does not always perform well when using E2E and can potentially drop packets due to its internal timestamping design having some flaws. See if it starts working if you can use peer delay mechanism? If your ptp source cannot use P2P, hopefully we can find out why E2E isn't working for you...

- Jake

> ptp4l[3704.267]: selected /dev/ptp0 as PTP clock
> ptp4l[3704.278]: port 1: INITIALIZING to LISTENING on INITIALIZE
> ptp4l[3704.278]: port 0: INITIALIZING to LISTENING on INITIALIZE
> ptp4l[3705.077]: port 1: new foreign master ece555.fffe.2de639-2
> ptp4l[3709.401]: selected best master clock ece555.fffe.2de639
> ptp4l[3709.401]: port 1: LISTENING to UNCALIBRATED on RS_SLAVE
> ptp4l[3710.039]: recvmsg tx timestamp failed: Resource temporarily
> unavailable
> ptp4l[3710.039]: port 1: send delay request failed
> ptp4l[3710.039]: port 1: UNCALIBRATED to FAULTY on FAULT_DETECTED
> ptp4l[3725.690]: port 1: FAULTY to LISTENING on FAULT_CLEARED
> ptp4l[3726.698]: port 1: new foreign master ece555.fffe.2de639-2
> ptp4l[3731.022]: selected best master clock ece555.fffe.2de639
> ptp4l[3731.022]: port 1: LISTENING to UNCALIBRATED on RS_SLAVE
> ptp4l[3731.193]: recvmsg tx timestamp failed: Resource temporarily
> unavailable
> ptp4l[3731.193]: port 1: send delay request failed
> ptp4l[3731.193]: port 1: UNCALIBRATED to FAULTY on FAULT_DETECTED
> 
> Software timestamping:
> 
> # ptp4l -i p16p1 -p /dev/ptp0 -m -2 -S
> 
> ptp4l[3826.218]: port 1: INITIALIZING to LISTENING on INITIALIZE
> ptp4l[3826.218]: port 0: INITIALIZING to LISTENING on INITIALIZE
> ptp4l[3828.312]: port 1: new foreign master ece555.fffe.2de639-2
> ptp4l[3832.218]: port 1: LISTENING to MASTER on
> ANNOUNCE_RECEIPT_TIMEOUT_EXPIRES
> ptp4l[3832.636]: selected best master clock ece555.fffe.2de639
> ptp4l[3832.636]: port 1: MASTER to UNCALIBRATED on RS_SLAVE
> ptp4l[3833.805]: negative path delay   -3374260
> ptp4l[3833.805]: path_delay = (t2 - t3) + (t4 - t1)
> ptp4l[3833.805]: t2 - t3 =  -87573969
> ptp4l[3833.805]: t4 - t1 =  +80825448
> ptp4l[3833.805]: c1          0
> ptp4l[3833.805]: c2          0
> ptp4l[3833.805]: c3          0
> ptp4l[3833.805]: port 1: minimum delay request interval 2^3
> ptp4l[3834.628]: negative path delay  -35159469
> ptp4l[3834.628]: path_delay = (t2 - t3) + (t4 - t1)
> ptp4l[3834.628]: t2 - t3 = -910670474
> ptp4l[3834.628]: t4 - t1 = +840351536
> ptp4l[3834.628]: c1          0
> ptp4l[3834.628]: c2          0
> ptp4l[3834.628]: c3          0
> ptp4l[3834.798]: master offset -10774702751233 s0 adj      +0 path delay
> -19266864
> ptp4l[3835.879]: master offset -10774619261329 s0 adj      +0 path delay
> -19266864
> 
> 
> What is the difference between hardware and software timestamping in
> this case?
> Why Hardware timestamping is not working properly?
> Why software timestamping shows the correct time values​​, but does not
> synchronize time with hardware ptp clock (/dev/ptp0)?
> 
> Sincerely, Alexander.
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Get your SQL database under version control now!
> Version control is standard for application code, but databases havent
> caught up. So what steps can you take to put your SQL databases under
> version control? Why should you start doing it? Read more to find out.
> http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=49501711&iu=/4140/ost
> g.clktrk
> _______________________________________________
> Linuxptp-users mailing list
> Lin...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linuxptp-users