On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 10:26:44AM +0200, Kurt Kanzenbach wrote:
> Hi Andrew,
>
> On Thu Jun 18 2020, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> >> +static u64 __hellcreek_ptp_clock_read(struct hellcreek *hellcreek)
> >> +{
> >> + u16 nsl, nsh, secl, secm, sech;
> >> +
> >> + /* Take a snapshot */
> >> + hellcreek_ptp_write(hellcreek, PR_COMMAND_C_SS, PR_COMMAND_C);
> >> +
> >> + /* The time of the day is saved as 96 bits. However, due to hardware
> >> + * limitations the seconds are not or only partly kept in the PTP
> >> + * core. That's why only the nanoseconds are used and the seconds are
> >> + * tracked in software. Anyway due to internal locking all five
> >> + * registers should be read.
> >> + */
> >> + sech = hellcreek_ptp_read(hellcreek, PR_SS_SYNC_DATA_C);
> >> + secm = hellcreek_ptp_read(hellcreek, PR_SS_SYNC_DATA_C);
> >> + secl = hellcreek_ptp_read(hellcreek, PR_SS_SYNC_DATA_C);
> >> + nsh = hellcreek_ptp_read(hellcreek, PR_SS_SYNC_DATA_C);
> >> + nsl = hellcreek_ptp_read(hellcreek, PR_SS_SYNC_DATA_C);
> >> +
> >> + return (u64)nsl | ((u64)nsh << 16);
> >
> > Hi Kurt
> >
> > What are the hardware limitations? There seems to be 48 bits for
> > seconds? That allows for 8925104 years?
>
> In theory, yes. Due to hardware hardware considerations only a few or
> none of these bits are used for the seconds. The rest is zero. Meaning
> that the wraparound is not 8925104 years, but at e.g. 8 seconds when
> using 3 bits for the seconds.
Please add this to the comment.
> >> +static u64 __hellcreek_ptp_gettime(struct hellcreek *hellcreek)
> >> +{
> >> + u64 ns;
> >> +
> >> + ns = __hellcreek_ptp_clock_read(hellcreek);
> >> + if (ns < hellcreek->last_ts)
> >> + hellcreek->seconds++;
> >> + hellcreek->last_ts = ns;
> >> + ns += hellcreek->seconds * NSEC_PER_SEC;
> >
> > So the assumption is, this gets called at least once per second. And
> > if that does not happen, there is no recovery. The second is lost.
>
> Yes, exactly. If a single overflow is missed, then the time is wrong.
>
> >
> > I'm just wondering if there is something more robust using what the
> > hardware does provide, even if the hardware is not perfect.
>
> I don't think there's a more robust way to do this. The overflow period
> is a second which should be enough time to catch the overflow even if
> the system is loaded. We did long running tests for days and the
> mechanism worked fine. We could also consider to move the delayed work
> to a dedicated thread which could be run with real time (SCHED_FIFO)
> priority. But, I didn't see the need for it.
If the hardware does give you 3 working bits for the seconds, you
could make use of that for a consistency check. If nothing else, you
could do a
dev_err(dev, 'PTP time is FUBAR');
Andrew
