Re: [Linuxptp-users] 3.1.1 -> 4.0 evolution?

[Maciek M. <ma...@ma...>]

On 7/10/2023 4:21 PM, jmfriedt wrote:
> I actually see a comment about this patch at
> https://github.com/richardcochran/linuxptp/commit/2a2532d66121d0060b042c5bd6020a62153f1e0a
> 
> stating that
> "it seems that this commit breaks compatibility with some GMs, e.g.,
> Microchip's TP4100. Tested with G.8275.2 profile. The reason being that
> this particular GMs do not reply to Delay_Req messages with minor
> version set to 1. Below find a fragment of the Delay_Req message from
> wireshark dump, which is not being replied to. As soon as I change the
> minorVersionPTP to 0, the appropriate Delay_Resp is being sent. All
> other messages work just fine (Signaling requests, etc.)."
> 
> ...
> 
> could be that the issue is with my use of a White Rabbit Switch acting
> as PTP server (https://ohwr.org/project/wr-switch-hw/wikis/home) rather
> than the Compute Module 4 slave.

CM4 can't timestamp TX packets that has the minor version set to a
non-zero value.

You can integrate this patch and set the required parameter to fix that
problem:
https://www.mail-archive.com/lin...@li.../msg06374.html

Thanks,
Maciek