Re: [Linuxptp-users] Wildly jumping offsets casued by phc2sys

[Robb <rba...@gm...>]

Yanir at:
https://sourceforge.net/p/e1000/mailman/message/34158396/
was able to help me with this problem.

He provided me with a patch to get this working.
I have tested it and it has been working for > hour with
no errors!

Here is a the patch + what I did in case it helps anyone else.

wget -O e1000e-3.1.0.2.tar.gz
"http://sourceforge.net/projects/e1000/files/e1000e%20stable/3.1.0.2/e1000e-3.1.0.2.tar.gz/download"
tar xvf e1000e-3.1.0.2.tar.gz
cd e1000e-3.1.0.2/src; patch < ../../fix_systim_issues-3.1.0.2.patch
sudo make install

$ cat fix_systim_issues-3.1.0.2.patch
--- netdev.c.orig 2015-06-01 16:49:37.802312304 +0300
+++ netdev.c 2015-06-01 16:51:19.468306452 +0300
@@ -4614,7 +4614,10 @@ static cycle_t e1000e_cyclecounter_read(
  cycle_t systim, systim_next;

  /* latch SYSTIMH on read of SYSTIML */
- systim = (cycle_t)er32(SYSTIML);
+ u32 systim_overflow_latch_fix = 0x3FFFFFFF;
+ do {
+ systim = (cycle_t)er32(SYSTIML);
+ } while (systim > systim_overflow_latch_fix);
  systim |= (cycle_t)er32(SYSTIMH) << 32;

  if ((hw->mac.type == e1000_82574) || (hw->mac.type == e1000_82583)) {



I apologize, my email composer (gmail) seems to delete the tabs in the patch.



On Sat, May 30, 2015 at 12:11 AM, Richard Cochran
<ric...@gm...> wrote:
> On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 04:59:29PM -0500, Robb wrote:
>> For whatever reason phc2sys seems to be blowing up the offsets.
>>
>> My set up is as follows:
>>
>> Two CentOS 6.5 machines
>> 2.6.32-504.16.2.el6.x86_64
>> linuxptp-1.3-1.el6.x86_64
>>
>> Machine1 eth1 [igb    5.0.5-k]    Intel I210 (rev 03)
>> Machine2 eth0 [e1000e 2.3.2-k] Intel I217-LM (rev 05)
>
> The I217-LM has a known HW bug.
>
>> I have read that there was some problems with the e1000e driver so I tried with
>> the 3.1.0.2-NAPI version, but still have the same problem as above.
>>
>> Does anyone have any ideas what could be the problem here?
>
> This isn't a driver problem but rather a HW bug.  I don't have that HW,
> and I have not yet heard of any SW (driver) work arounds.  You might
> ask on the e1000e list if Intel has a solution to this problem.
>
> Thanks,
> Richard