From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga07.intel.com (mga07.intel.com [134.134.136.100]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 995262935 for ; 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" To: Thomas Monjalon CC: "dev@dpdk.org" , Oleg Kuporosov , "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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-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 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