From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail.colasoft.com.cn (unknown [58.30.236.11]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6604B376C for ; Mon, 1 Jun 2015 08:42:54 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail.colasoft.com.cn (Mailserver-Colasoft) with ESMTP id A708710783CE; Mon, 1 Jun 2015 14:16:31 +0800 (CST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at colasoft.com.cn X-Spam-Flag: YES X-Spam-Score: 6.661 X-Spam-Level: ****** X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=6.661 tagged_above=-10 required=5 tests=[ALL_TRUSTED=-1.8, AWL=3.128, BAYES_50=0.001, DNS_FROM_AHBL_RHSBL=0.692, DSPAM_ERROR=0.1, FH_DATE_PAST_20XX=3.188, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, TVD_RCVD_SINGLE=1.351] autolearn=no Received: from mail.colasoft.com.cn ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.colasoft.com.cn [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5gsIEovAH9Ah; Mon, 1 Jun 2015 14:16:24 +0800 (CST) Received: from TANCHUNHAIPC (unknown [221.237.157.169]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.colasoft.com.cn (Mailserver-Colasoft) with ESMTPSA id EAECC10783C8; Mon, 1 Jun 2015 14:16:23 +0800 (CST) From: =?UTF-8?B?56eR5p2lIOiwreaYpea1tw==?= To: "'Keunhong Lee'" References: <002a01d09c14$16911430$43b33c90$@colasoft.com.cn> In-Reply-To: Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2015 14:39:11 +0800 Message-ID: <004d01d09c35$abd42070$037c6150$@colasoft.com.cn> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: AQIY3k7WGoU8SbSmtJPaoWR7DbxgzgFhLJ8DAeqRO4Oc7E9eQA== Content-Language: zh-cn Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.15 Cc: dev@dpdk.org Subject: [dpdk-dev] =?utf-8?b?562U5aSNOiAgSG93IHRvIHNldCB0aW1lc3RhbXAgaW4g?= =?utf-8?q?82599_NICs_in_DPDK=3F?= X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 01 Jun 2015 06:42:55 -0000 Hi Keunhong, =20 Thanks for your response. Seems ixgbe only supports hw timestamping for = PTP packets. But I still don=E2=80=99t understand why igb and e1000 = support hw timestamping all packets while ixgbe does not. =20 =E5=8F=91=E4=BB=B6=E4=BA=BA: Keunhong Lee [mailto:dlrmsghd@gmail.com]=20 =E5=8F=91=E9=80=81=E6=97=B6=E9=97=B4: 2015=E5=B9=B46=E6=9C=881=E6=97=A5 = 11:51 =E6=94=B6=E4=BB=B6=E4=BA=BA: =E7=A7=91=E6=9D=A5 = =E8=B0=AD=E6=98=A5=E6=B5=B7 =E6=8A=84=E9=80=81: dev@dpdk.org =E4=B8=BB=E9=A2=98: Re: [dpdk-dev] How to set timestamp in 82599 NICs in = DPDK? =20 http://dpdk.org/browse/dpdk/tree/app/test-pmd/ieee1588fwd.c =20 This code example contains enabling PTP with intel NICs. =20 Keunhong. =20 =20 =20 2015-06-01 12:48 GMT+09:00 Keunhong Lee : 82599 supports hw timestamping for PTP packets. I don't know whether it supports timestamping for general packets. =20 =20 http://lxr.free-electrons.com/source/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ixgbe/ixg= be_ptp.c#L640 says that = 640 default: = 641 /* = 642 * register RXMTRL must be set in = order to do V1 packets, = 643 * therefore it is not possible to = time stamp both V1 Sync and = 644 * Delay_Req messages and hardware = does not support = 645 * timestamping all packets =3D> = return error = 646 */ = 647 = config->rx_filter =3D = HWTSTAMP_FILTER_NONE; = 648 return - = ERANGE; = 649 } =20 Keunhong. =20 2015-06-01 11:38 GMT+09:00 =E7=A7=91=E6=9D=A5 = =E8=B0=AD=E6=98=A5=E6=B5=B7 : Hi I noticed that there is a patch which can set hardware timestamp for the received packets(http://www.wand.net.nz/trac/libtrace/browser/Intel%20DPDK%20Patch= es/ = =20 hardware_timestamp.patch?rev=3Dce7153dbc6a13c18bf8033af08c1249527754168),= but it only works in e1000 and igb NICs. I want to capture packets with timestamp info in 82599 NICs, what should I do? Could you give me some = help? Thanks. Chunhai Tan =20 =20