Re: [Linuxptp-users] Issues with linuxptp and Intel 82574

[Vick, M. <mat...@in...>]

Fabrizio,

Based on your ethtool -T eth0 output, it sounds like you need the
E1000E_PTP compile flag. You should see the ethtool -T eth0 output change
after using that flag. The hardware timestamping is technically a
different functionality than the PTP functionality and e1000e version on
SourceForge exposes the hardware timestamping by default, but not the PTP
support.

Cheers,
Matthew

On 10/21/13 9:51 AM, "Fabrizio Giordano" <Fab...@ri...>
wrote:

>Hello Matthew and thanks for your answer,
>
>The version of e1000e is 2.5.4:
>
>ethtool -i eth0
>driver: e1000e
>version: 2.5.4-NAPI
>firmware-version: 1.9-0
>bus-info: 0000:03:00.0
>supports-statistics: yes
>supports-test: yes
>supports-eeprom-access: yes
>supports-register-dump: yes
>supports-priv-flags: no
>
>The kernel we use is a custom recompiled version of 2.6.32-358.18.1.el6.
>I'll try recompiling the driver with the E1000E_PTP option and see if it
>works.
>Thanks for your help
>
>Fabrizio
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Vick, Matthew [mailto:mat...@in...]
>Sent: Monday, October 21, 2013 9:42
>To: Ledda William EXT; Fabrizio Giordano;
>lin...@li...
>Subject: Re: [Linuxptp-users] Issues with linuxptp and Intel 82574
>
>Fabrizio,
>
>I would be curious about the ethtool -T eth0 output as well. If you are
>grabbing the latest version of the driver from SourceForge and are seeing
>that issue, you likely did not compile in the PTP support with the
>additional flag (CFLAGS_EXTRA=-DE1000E_PTP make). You can confirm this
>with the README.
>
>Thinking out loud, I also would have expected the SW timestamping to
>work. What version of the kernel and driver are you running?
>$ uname -a
>$ ethtool -i eth0
>
>The recvmsg tx timestamp failed message means that ptp4l did not ever
>receive the Tx timestamp back.
>
>Cheers,
>Matthew
>
>Matthew Vick
>Linux Development
>Networking Division
>Intel Corporation
>
>From: Ledda William EXT
><Wil...@it...<mailto:Wil...@it...>>
>Date: Monday, October 21, 2013 12:10 AM
>To: Fabrizio Giordano
><Fab...@ri...<mailto:Fab...@ri...>>,
>"lin...@li...<mailto:lin...@li...urcefo
>rge.net>" 
><lin...@li...<mailto:lin...@li...urcefo
>rge.net>>
>Subject: Re: [Linuxptp-users] Issues with linuxptp and Intel 82574
>
>Ciao Frabrizio,
>Have you tried to discover the timestamp capabilities with ethtool -T
>eth0?
>
>William
>
>From: Fabrizio Giordano [mailto:Fab...@ri...]
>Sent: 19 October 2013 02:28
>To: 
>lin...@li...<mailto:lin...@li...urcefor
>ge.net>
>Subject: [Linuxptp-users] Issues with linuxptp and Intel 82574
>
>Hello everyone,
>
>I've been trying to use linux with my Intel 82574 with no much luck.
>First I've tried to use it with software timestamping since the version
>of e1000e I was using didn't support HW timestamping.
>This is what I get:
>
>[root@199-dorothy13 ~]# ptp4l -i eth0 -v -S
>ptp4l[25333.043]: port 1: INITIALIZING to LISTENING on INITIALIZE
>ptp4l[25333.043]: port 0: INITIALIZING to LISTENING on INITIALIZE
>ptp4l[25334.561]: port 1: new foreign master 003048.fffe.9ea9d6-1
>ptp4l[25338.561]: selected best master clock 003048.fffe.9ea9d6
>ptp4l[25338.561]: port 1: LISTENING to GRAND_MASTER on RS_GRAND_MASTER
>ptp4l[25339.567]: recvmsg tx timestamp failed: Resource temporarily
>unavailable
>ptp4l[25339.567]: port 1: send sync failed
>ptp4l[25339.567]: port 1: GRAND_MASTER to FAULTY on FAULT_DETECTED
>ptp4l[25354.574]: port 1: FAULTY to LISTENING on FAULT_CLEARED
>
>What is that supposed to mean? Resource temporarily unavailable?
>
>So I decided to update my e1000e driver to the latest version available
>(2.5.4) and use HW timestamping.
>After rebooting my machine I try to run it with HW support (no option -S)
>and this is what I get:
>
>ptp4l[25432.718]: driver rejected most general HWTSTAMP filter
>ptp4l[25432.718]: ioctl SIOCSHWTSTAMP failed: Numerical result out of
>range
>ptp4l[25432.722]: port 1: INITIALIZING to FAULTY on INITIALIZE
>ptp4l[25432.722]: port 0: INITIALIZING to LISTENING on INITIALIZE
>
>Does anyone know what's going on?
>Thank you very much!
>
>Fabrizio
>
>