From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <jingjing.wu@intel.com>
Received: from mga07.intel.com (mga07.intel.com [134.134.136.100])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 995262935
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Fri, 28 Apr 2017 02:19:34 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from fmsmga005.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.32])
 by orsmga105.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 27 Apr 2017 17:19:33 -0700
X-ExtLoop1: 1
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.37,386,1488873600"; d="scan'208";a="94756495"
Received: from fmsmsx104.amr.corp.intel.com ([10.18.124.202])
 by fmsmga005.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 27 Apr 2017 17:19:33 -0700
Received: from fmsmsx118.amr.corp.intel.com (10.18.116.18) by
 fmsmsx104.amr.corp.intel.com (10.18.124.202) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS)
 id 14.3.319.2; Thu, 27 Apr 2017 17:19:32 -0700
Received: from shsmsx102.ccr.corp.intel.com (10.239.4.154) by
 fmsmsx118.amr.corp.intel.com (10.18.116.18) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS)
 id 14.3.319.2; Thu, 27 Apr 2017 17:19:32 -0700
Received: from shsmsx103.ccr.corp.intel.com ([169.254.4.117]) by
 shsmsx102.ccr.corp.intel.com ([169.254.2.246]) with mapi id 14.03.0319.002;
 Fri, 28 Apr 2017 08:19:29 +0800
From: "Wu, Jingjing" <jingjing.wu@intel.com>
To: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
CC: "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>, Oleg Kuporosov <olegk@mellanox.com>,
 "olivier.matz@6wind.com" <olivier.matz@6wind.com>
Thread-Topic: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 2/3] app/testpmd: enabled control for packet
 timestamps
Thread-Index: AQHSJV82a37aw96gSUeGSmtoFtkAU6HXTV3g//+h/oCABC8ZYA==
Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 00:19:30 +0000
Message-ID: <9BB6961774997848B5B42BEC655768F810D59753@SHSMSX103.ccr.corp.intel.com>
References: <1476369308-17021-1-git-send-email-olegk@mellanox.com>
 <1476369308-17021-3-git-send-email-olegk@mellanox.com>
 <9BB6961774997848B5B42BEC655768F810D4D536@SHSMSX103.ccr.corp.intel.com>
 <5493210.cW0TSkhqM8@xps>
In-Reply-To: <5493210.cW0TSkhqM8@xps>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
x-originating-ip: [10.239.127.40]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 2/3] app/testpmd: enabled control for
	packet	timestamps
X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 00:19:35 -0000

> 25/04/2017 16:02, Wu, Jingjing:
> > From: Oleg Kuporosov
> > > Implemented two methods of control
> > >
> > > - by --enable-timestamps CL testpmd application we can enable
> timestamping
> > >   for all ports;
> > > - in interactive mode port config <port> timestamps on|off is able to
> > >   configure timestamping per specific port.
> > >
> > > The control doesn't interact with IEEE1588 PTP implementation there
> > > as it is under macro compilation but can be extended in the future.
> > >
> > > This feature is required for debugging/testing purposes for real
> > > time HW packet timestamping.
> >
> > We have ieee1588fwd.c to demo the timesync enable/disable, can we
> > reuse The fwd engine instead of defining new commands?
>=20
> Yes for IEEE1588 feature, we should use app/test-pmd/ieee1588fwd.c.
>=20
> There is more to say about this feature.
>=20
> The main goal of this patchset was to add a timestamp in the mbuf.
> It has been done by another patchset in 17.05.
OK. But it is not clear now what is the timestamp for, right?

> Do we know how to test this timestamp in testpmd?
>
Mbuf dump can show this value. The problem is if we can use the
rte_eth_timesync_enable/disable to indicate the timestamp
is in mbuf or not.

> About IEEE1588 feature, why is there a config option?
> 	CONFIG_RTE_LIBRTE_IEEE1588
> A feature should never be disabled at compile time.
> There is also a runtime enablement with rte_eth_timesync_enable().
>=20
> I think we need some discussions here.

Yes, I agree.

> Thanks