-
Vladimir Oltean authored
Some PHCs like the ocelot/felix switch cannot emit generic periodic output, but just PPS (pulse per second) signals, which: - don't start from arbitrary absolute times, but are rather phase-aligned to the beginning of [the closest next] second. - have an optional phase offset relative to that beginning of the second. For those, it was initially established that they should reject any other absolute time for the PTP_PEROUT_REQUEST than 0.000000000 [1]. But when it actually came to writing an application [2] that makes use of this functionality, we realized that we can't really deal generically with PHCs that support absolute start time, and with PHCs that don't, without an explicit interface. Namely, in an ideal world, PHC drivers would ensure that the "perout.start" value written to hardware will result in a functional output. This means that if the PTP time has become in the past of this PHC's current time, it should be automatically fast-forwarded by the driver into a close enough future time that is known to work (note: this is necessary only if the hardware doesn't do this fast-forward by itself). But we don't really know what is the status for PHC drivers in use today, so in the general sense, user space would be risking to have a non-functional periodic output if it simply asked for a start time of 0.000000000. So let's introduce a flag for this type of reduced-functionality hardware, named PTP_PEROUT_PHASE. The start time is just "soon", the only thing we know for sure about this signal is that its rising edge events, Rn, occur at: Rn = perout.phase + n * perout.period The "phase" in the periodic output structure is simply an alias to the "start" time, since both cannot logically be specified at the same time. Therefore, the binary layout of the structure is not affected. [1]: https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/netdev/patch/20200320103726.32559-7-yangbo.lu@nxp.com/ [2]: https://www.mail-archive.com/linuxptp-devel@lists.sourceforge.net/msg04142.html Signed-off-by:
Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@gmail.com> Signed-off-by:
David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
b6bd4136Vladimir Oltean authoredSome PHCs like the ocelot/felix switch cannot emit generic periodic output, but just PPS (pulse per second) signals, which: - don't start from arbitrary absolute times, but are rather phase-aligned to the beginning of [the closest next] second. - have an optional phase offset relative to that beginning of the second. For those, it was initially established that they should reject any other absolute time for the PTP_PEROUT_REQUEST than 0.000000000 [1]. But when it actually came to writing an application [2] that makes use of this functionality, we realized that we can't really deal generically with PHCs that support absolute start time, and with PHCs that don't, without an explicit interface. Namely, in an ideal world, PHC drivers would ensure that the "perout.start" value written to hardware will result in a functional output. This means that if the PTP time has become in the past of this PHC's current time, it should be automatically fast-forwarded by the driver into a close enough future time that is known to work (note: this is necessary only if the hardware doesn't do this fast-forward by itself). But we don't really know what is the status for PHC drivers in use today, so in the general sense, user space would be risking to have a non-functional periodic output if it simply asked for a start time of 0.000000000. So let's introduce a flag for this type of reduced-functionality hardware, named PTP_PEROUT_PHASE. The start time is just "soon", the only thing we know for sure about this signal is that its rising edge events, Rn, occur at: Rn = perout.phase + n * perout.period The "phase" in the periodic output structure is simply an alias to the "start" time, since both cannot logically be specified at the same time. Therefore, the binary layout of the structure is not affected. [1]: https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/netdev/patch/20200320103726.32559-7-yangbo.lu@nxp.com/ [2]: https://www.mail-archive.com/linuxptp-devel@lists.sourceforge.net/msg04142.html Signed-off-by:
Loading