> -----Original Message----- > From: Richard Cochran [mailto:richardcochran@xxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2018 2:26 PM > To: Keller, Jacob E <jacob.e.keller@xxxxxxxxx> > Cc: netdev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; devicetree@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Andrew Lunn > <andrew@xxxxxxx>; David Miller <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Florian Fainelli > <f.fainelli@xxxxxxxxx>; Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@xxxxxxx>; Miroslav > Lichvar <mlichvar@xxxxxxxxxx>; Rob Herring <robh+dt@xxxxxxxxxx>; Willem de > Bruijn <willemb@xxxxxxxxxx> > Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next RFC V1 1/5] net: Introduce peer to peer one step > PTP time stamping. > > On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 08:05:36PM +0000, Keller, Jacob E wrote: > > I am guessing that we expect all devices which support onestep P2P messages, > will always support onestep SYNC as well? > > Yes. Anything else doesn't make sense, don't you think? > > Also, reading 1588, it isn't clear whether supporting only 1-step Sync > without 1-step P2P is even intended. There is only a "one-step > clock", and it is described as doing both. > > Thanks, > Richard This was my understanding as well, but given the limited hardware which can do sync but not pdelay messages, I just wanted to make sure we were on the same page. Thanks, Jake -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
