> On Mon, Apr 24, 2023 at 03:04:07PM -0700, Richard Cochran wrote: > > On Sun, Apr 23, 2023 at 01:33:19PM +0000, Stern, Avraham wrote: > > So obviously for ptp4l to support time sync over wifi, it will need > > to implement the FTM protocol (sending FTM frames via nl80211 > > socket) and use the kernel APIs added here > "obviously" ? > In the past, I made quite some thougts about how to best implement PTP over Wifi. I may have even written something about it. Sorry, of course nothing goes into ptp4l without your approval. I was not aware about what you previously wrote on this subject. > In any case, "implement the FTM protocol (sending FTM frames via > nl80211 socket)" was definitely NOT one of the approaches. My understanding was that 1588-2019 and 8021AS-2020 mandate the usage of TM/FTM for PTP over wifi. Since FTM offload (as it is today) is not reporting the raw timestamps (only the calculated range) and also doesn't support adding the needed vendor IEs, it didn't seem to fit. Can you please explain what I am missing? > Wouldn't it have great to start a discussion before plowing ahead and hacking something into the kernel? > Oh well. Having the timestamps of the frames seemed like a basic capability that userspace will need to implement ptp over wifi, regardless of the selected approach. Apparently you had other ways in mind, so I would love to have that discussion and hear about it. Thanks, Avi. --------------------------------------------------------------------- A member of the Intel Corporation group of companies This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.
