On Thu Oct 08 2020, Vladimir Oltean wrote: > On Thu, Oct 08, 2020 at 10:34:11AM +0200, Kurt Kanzenbach wrote: >> On Wed Oct 07 2020, Vladimir Oltean wrote: >> > On Wed, Oct 07, 2020 at 12:39:49PM +0200, Kurt Kanzenbach wrote: >> >> For instance the hellcreek switch has actually three ptp hardware >> >> clocks and the time stamping can be configured to use either one of >> >> them. >> > >> > The sja1105 also has a corrected and an uncorrected PTP clock that can >> > take timestamps. Initially I had thought I'd be going to spend some time >> > figuring out multi-PHC support, but now I don't see any practical reason >> > to use the uncorrected PHC for anything. >> >> Just out of curiosity: How do you implement 802.1AS then? My >> understanding is that the free-running clock has to be used for the > > Has to be? I couldn't find that wording in IEEE 802.1AS-2011. It doesn't has to be, it *should* be. That's at least the outcome we had after lots of discussions. Actually Kamil (on Cc) is the expert on this topic. > >> calculation of the peer delays and such meaning there should be a way to >> get access to both PHCs or having some form of cross timestamping >> available. >> >> The hellcreek switch can take cross snapshots of all three ptp clocks in >> hardware for that purpose. > > Well, at the end of the day, all the other TSN offloads (tc-taprio, > tc-gate) will still have to use the synchronized PTP clock, so what > we're doing is we're simply letting that clock be synchronized by > ptp4l. Yes, the synchronized clock is of course needed for the traffic scheduling and so on. This is what we do here in this code as well. Only the synchronized one is exported to user space and used. However, the multi PHCs issue should be addressed as well at some point. > >> >> > So when you'll poll for TX timestamps, you'll receive a TX >> >> > timestamp from the PHY and another one from the switch, and those will >> >> > be in a race with one another, so you won't know which one is which. >> >> >> >> OK. So what happens if the driver will accept to disable hardware >> >> timestamping? Is there anything else that needs to be implemented? Are >> >> there (good) examples? >> > >> > It needs to not call skb_complete_tx_timestamp() and friends. >> > >> > For PHY timestamping, it also needs to invoke the correct methods for RX >> > and for TX, where the PHY timestamping hooks will get called. I don't >> > think that DSA is compatible yet with PHY timestamping, but it is >> > probably a trivial modification. >> >> Hmm? If DSA doesn't support PHY timestamping how are other DSA drivers >> dealing with it then? I'm getting really confused. > > They aren't dealing with it, of course. > >> Furthermore, there is no hellcreek hardware available with timestamping >> capable PHYs. How am I supposed to even test this? >> >> For now, until there is hardware available, PHY timestamping is not >> supported with the hellcreek switch. > > I was just pointing out that this is something you'll certainly have to > change if somebody will want PHY timestamping. Understood. > > Even without hardware, you _could_ probably test that DSA is doing the > right thing by simply adding the PTP timestamping ops to a PHY driver > that you own, and inject dummy timestamps. The expectation becomes that > user space gets those dummy timestamps, and not the ones emitted by your > switch. Of course it can be mocked. Whenever somebody wants to do PHY timestamping with a hellcreek switch this issue can be re-visited. Thanks, Kurt
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
