Re: [Linuxptp-users] (no subject)

[Baya O. <bay...@gm...>]

yes thank you Richard,
 indeed it is going to be some issues to resolve... I will let you know the
progress using ptp4l but we need to find a best and secured solution
because the software will be implemented on real fast train, so the timing
is very very important..
Baya

2016-07-13 11:14 GMT+02:00 Richard Cochran <ric...@gm...>:

> On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 10:25:46AM +0200, Baya Oussena wrote:
> > Once again, I thank you very much for your help, you saved me a lot of
> > time. Indeed our architecture is Intel 82574 (driver e1000e) so I will
> have
> > to think of an other solution.
>
> Oh man.  That is not one of Intel's better parts.  Oh well.
>
> If you want to use ptp4l, you are going to have to implement multiple
> clocks, each with its own configuration.  Take a look at clock.h and
> clock.c.  The functional interface would allow more than one clock,
> but the implementation does not.  We have:
>
>         struct clock the_clock;
>         ...
>         clock_create()
>         {
>                 struct clock *c = &the_clock;
>                 ...
>                 return c;
>         }
>
> At the very least, you will have to properly allocate the new clock.
> After that, you'll have to make sure it all works.  My gut feeling is
> that there will be some issues to resolve...
>
> Good luck,
> Richard
>
>