James Clark
James Clark
This can also happen with clients and the timemaster service. ptp4l gives the following error: ``` interface 'eth0' does not support requested timestamping ```
What's the client? Do you have a switch between client and master, or are they connected back to back?
Hmm. I don't have any great ideas. I would suggest trying some variations to see what works and what doesn't: - one step vs two step - UDP vs 802.3...
The pulse width is very short (you specified 1 microsecond), so you may need to adjust your oscilloscope settings for it to detect the pulse.
If you have a recursive type e.g. ``` type List record { int n; List? next; }; ``` you cannot write it without using a name.
Some of the papers that I have read on semantic subtyping suggest based on their experience that in a case where you have a type S that is supposed to...
@JN19aban It looks like NUMA can be turned off by setting SDRAM_BANKLOW=0 with rpi-eeprom-config. I will give that a try.
`vcgencmd bootloader_version` gives me ``` 2025/01/08 17:52:48 version 97facbf492c43a5b6b0e9719860798b7cebfdebb (release) timestamp 1736358768 update-time 1736908130 capabilities 0x0000007f ``` What command were you running?
With that the offset is `344096797ns` i.e. 0.34s, which is a lot different from before. Do you have any insight as to why NUMA should be affecting ptp4l so much?
I'm running latest already and get the same output from rpi-eeprom-update as you.