Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Inconsistent tagging for PTP frames #134

Open
epsilon-0311 opened this issue Nov 6, 2022 · 2 comments
Open

Inconsistent tagging for PTP frames #134

epsilon-0311 opened this issue Nov 6, 2022 · 2 comments

Comments

@epsilon-0311
Copy link
Contributor

Hi all,

as already discussed in the Friday meetings I stumbled across some funky behaviour how timestamps for the sent out message are created.
I did some investigation inside the hardware and got the following trace. I marked the important signals orange
Screenshot from 2022-11-06 21-16-59
Depicted are two sent out frames, where the start of a frame is indicated by a rising edge in the sofDetect signal.
The \stateReg.0111 signal creates a rising edge if the Ethernet Frame is a PTP frame. In the first frame the ethTypeReg has the correct value therefore \stateReg.0111 is asserted and a time stamp is created i.e. timestampAvailReg gets set. In the second frame the ethTypeReg does not have the correct value, but all frames sent out are correctly detected as PTP frames by wireshark.

Given that I assume that may be an issue sampling the MII RX and TX Channels as I assume the IO device runs at 80 MHz like the remaining Patmos core, but according to Wikipedia the MII for 100 MBit uses a 25 MHz clock. Is it possible that this cause the wrong values in the ethTypeReg?

The full vcd file can be found hereUploading dump.zip…

@epsilon-0311
Copy link
Contributor Author

I changed the trigger condition from the shift register used from the rising edge to the falling edge which significantly improved the measurements in my test setup. So I assume the issue was that the transition clocked out at the MII were not detected correctly

@schoeberl
Copy link
Member

schoeberl commented Nov 10, 2022 via email

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants