Re: [RFC] support for IEEE 1588 | |
| [Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] | |
On Friday 04 July 2008, Rick Jones wrote: > I've not had a good emily litella moment in at least a week, so I'll ask > - if the clock in the hardware generating the timestamp and the clock in > the host aren't synchronized in _some_ way, what benefit is there to > putting the hardware's timestamp in there? > We actually currently use them for delay/jitter calculation in conjunction with having the RX and TX port's source timestamping units running in sync. We can do that since both the RX and TX port (Linux based) will run in our hardware (chassis). I guess we could try to do a simple sync between the host clock and the hw clock by getting the initial delta between the two. But since the two clocks are not in sync, they will diverge in time. And since I do not know enough about the way in which tstamp is currently used, I'm not very confident that this will not break something... so, back to grepping :) Thanks, tavi -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
[Kernel List] [Site Home] [Ethernet Bridging] [Git] [IETF Annouce] [Linux Assembly] [VLAN] [Networking] [Security] [Bugtraq] [Rubini] [Photo] [Yosemite] [MIPS Linux] [ARM Linux] [Linux Virtualization] [Linux Security] [Linux IDE] [Linux RAID] [Linux SCSI] [Linux Wireless] [DDR & Rambus] [Free Dating] [Linux Resources] [Wireless Reading Device]
![]() |
![]() |