Re: [RFC v2 0/2] ptp: Move non-NIC PHC drivers from netdev to clock/timekeeping maintainership

On 2026/2/27 16:19, Wen Gu wrote:

To get more clock/timekeeping-side input on this RFC (in particular, the two open
questions below), I’m CC’ing a few additional maintainers from the clock/time area.

> # Request for comments
> 
> 1. Following the clocksource/timekeeping and POSIX timer areas, this RFC routes
> changes for drivers/ptp/emulated/ to [email protected] (rather than
> netdev). However, the preferred integration path is still unclear (e.g. which
> tree should take such changes, and who should collect/pull them for merging). We
> would really appreciate guidance from the time/clock maintainers, especially any
> input from Thomas Gleixner, on the preferred tree/workflow for these changes.

As a concrete option for (1): would it be acceptable to merge changes for
drivers/ptp/emulated/ via tip.git (timers/core branch)?

> 2. This RFC currently lists us as the maintainers for drivers/ptp/emulated/ as a
> fallback contact point. Ideally, we would prefer this area to be maintained by
> clock/time experts in the long run. Suggestions on more suitable maintainers are
> very welcome.

We’d appreciate guidance from the clock/timekeeping maintainers on the preferred
workflow and long-term maintainership for this class of clock drivers.

Thanks!