|
|
|
|
|
by eqvinox
300 days ago
|
|
> Steering the same PHC with phc2sys as chronyd is using for HW timestamping is not the best approach as that creates a feedback loop (instability). This is standard practice, though, for most PTP slave clocks. The feedback is just factored into the math. (Why? No idea. I just know how the code works.) Although… it's standard practice in PTP setups that are designed for it. Not NTP… if only there were a specification… :) I do have to wonder though. Of what use are timestamps from an unsynchronized PHC to chrony? Is it continuously taking twin sys+PHC timestamps to line up things? |
|
That would be the logical way to do it. You want the lowest jitter timestamps you can get on the incoming ethernet frames. If conditions are stable enough you can compute a timebase translation between your MAC local clock and sys clock using the best available method, potentially using many samples over a (relatively) long time frame. And as the GP says, this gives a feed-forward structure without any need for stabilising a feedback loop.
gPTP full-duplex ethernet peer synchronisation uses timestamps from free-running local clocks at each end of the link.