Re: [Linuxptp-users] [EXTERNAL] Re: Monitoring an automotive-slave node

[Mikael A. <mik...@ar...>]

Hi Richard,

Thanks for the quick reply!

Could you explain what I would use the TIME_STATUS_NP.ingress_time for when monitoring the end station?

Best regards,
Mikael

-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Cochran <ric...@gm...>
Sent: den 18 november 2021 23:23
To: Mikael Arvids <mik...@ar...>
Cc: lin...@li...
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Linuxptp-users] Monitoring an automotive-slave node

On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 08:50:36AM +0000, Mikael Arvids via Linuxptp-users wrote:
>
>   1.  Is this the expected behavior when using the automotive profile (especially the inhibit_announce option set to true)?

Yes, looks about right to me.  Remember, without Announce messages, the GM identity is lost.

>   2.  Is there a recommended way to monitor the end-stations as our earlier approach might not be the best, especially when introducing bridges?

It really depends on your requirements.  There is no "one size fits all" when it comes to synchronization monitoring.

> We want to ensure that the end-stations are synchronized to the dedicated time server and that the accuracy is at least X microseconds.

Well, you can monitor TIME_STATUS_NP.master_offset and TIME_STATUS_NP.ingress_time for starters.

Good luck,
Richard

***************************************************************
To read the Company's Information and Confidentiality Notice, follow this link:
https://www.arriver.com/important-information-and-confidentiality-notice
***************************************************************