Re: [Linuxptp-users] Need help debugging failed clock synchronization

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

Hi John,

It looks like you should have the latest driver (3.3.3) already. If you could isolate the problem using testptp from the Documentation/ptp folder of the kernel tree, using the sourceforge e1000e driver, and show that it is having issues, then we can get that reported to the team that owns e1000e, and hopefully they can determine what needs to be fixed.

Thanks,
Jake

From: John Hubbard [mailto:jhu...@no...]
Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2016 10:55 AM
To: Keller, Jacob E <jac...@in...>; ric...@gm...
Cc: lin...@li...
Subject: Re: [Linuxptp-users] Need help debugging failed clock synchronization

On 03/22/2016 03:35 PM, Keller, Jacob E wrote:

Hi John,



On Wed, 2016-03-16 at 13:45 -0700, John Hubbard wrote:

On 03/16/2016 12:54 PM, Richard Cochran wrote:



On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 10:20:35AM -0700, John Hubbard wrote:



After changing the 'time_stamping' option in /etc/ptp4l.conf from

hardware to software and restarting ptp4l I now see much better

behavior.

Yes, but probably you are disappointed having to forego the HW

synchronization performance.  At least this test shows that your

card

most likely has a HW bug.

If possible it would be really nice to get the HW time-stamping

working

on this system.  I can move to another system if needed but getting

this

working would help me in the short term.  (No expansion ports or I'd

just pick up another NIC.  On a related note do you or anyone else

on

the list know how well the Intel X540 (10Gb NIC using the ixgbe

driver)

is supported WRT ptp4l?





The X540 device should be supported WRT ptp4l, and as far as I know it

works quite well. I am sorry for the troubles the e1000e adapter is

causing. It is most likely a driver issue. I am not 100% sure who is

responsible for that driver now, but I will attempt to determine if the

latest errata have been released on SourceForge yet. (It can be slow

sometimes)

Thanks for the info about the x540.  Please let me know if a newer driver for the 82574L ends up on SF.



--

-john



To be or not to be, that is the question

                2b || !2b

(0b10)*(0b1100010) || !(0b10)*(0b1100010)

        0b11000100 || !0b11000100

        0b11000100 ||  0b00111011

               0b11111111

255, that is the answer.