> 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? > > Yes for IEEE1588 feature, we should use app/test-pmd/ieee1588fwd.c. > > There is more to say about this feature. > > 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(). > > I think we need some discussions here. Yes, I agree. > Thanks
