Hi Richard, On Wed, 21 Aug 2019 at 17:08, Richard Cochran <richardcochran@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 09:38:45PM -0700, Richard Cochran wrote: > > Overall, the PTP switch use case is well supported by Linux. The > > synchronization of the management CPU to the PTP, while nice to have, > > is not required to implement a Transparent Clock. Your specific > > application might require it, but honestly, if the management CPU > > needs good synchronization, then you really aught to feed a PPS from > > the switch into a gpio (for example) on the CPU. > > Another way to achieve this is to have a second MAC interface on the > management CPU connected to a spare port on the switch. Then time > stamping, PHC, ptp4l, and phc2sys work as expected. > > Thanks, > Richard Of course PPS with a dedicated hardware receiver that can take input compare timestamps is always preferable. However non-Ethernet synchronization in the field looks to me like "make do with whatever you can". I'm not sure a plain GPIO that raises an interrupt is better than an interrupt-driven serial protocol controller - it's (mostly) the interrupts that throw off the precision of the software timestamp. And use Miroslav's pps-gpio-poll module and you're back from where you started (try to make a sw timestamp as precise as possible). As for dedicating a second interface pair in (basically) loopback just for sync, that's how I'm testing PTP when I don't have a second board and hence how the idea occurred to me. I can imagine this even getting deployed and I can also probably name an example, but it certainly wouldn't be my first choice. But DSA could have that built-in, and with the added latency benefit of a MAC-to-MAC connection. Too bad the mv88e6xxx driver can't do loopback timestamping, that's already 50% of the DSA drivers that support PTP at all. An embedded solution for this is less compelling now. Regards, -Vladimir