Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] MAINTAINERS: update PTP maintainer entries after directory split

On Mon, 2026-04-13 at 17:00 +0800, Wen Gu wrote:
> 
> On 2026/4/13 00:53, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > On Sun, 12 Apr 2026 17:32:22 +0100 David Woodhouse wrote:
> > > On 12 April 2026 16:47:04 BST, Jakub Kicinski <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > On Tue,  7 Apr 2026 18:48:02 +0800 Wen Gu wrote:
> > > > > +PTP EMULATED CLOCK SUPPORT
> > > > > +M:	David Woodhouse <[email protected]>
> > > > > +M:	Wen Gu <[email protected]>
> > > > > +M:	Xuan Zhuo <[email protected]>
> > > > > +L:	[email protected]
> > > > > +S:	Maintained
> > > > > +T:	git git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tip/tip.git timers/core
> > > > 
> > > > Hi David,
> > > > 
> > > > Do you have a tree to route the patches thru? Or do you really have
> > > > access to the tip tree?
> > > 
> > > I do not have access to the tip tree. I can make a shared tree on
> > > git.infradead.org if the other two maintainers would like to send me
> > > a SSH pubkey and preferred username...
> > 
> > Honestly I'd love for you to be the only M here, and the other two
> > to be reviewers. Xuan Zhuo is currently at v40 trying to upstream
> > an Ethernet driver. Some growth needed there to become a subsystem
> > maintainer IMO.
> 
> Hi Jakub, David,
> 
> That works for us. We can act as reviewers.
> 
> If David sets up a new tree, I will update the MAINTAINERS entry
> accordingly in v3.

Apologies for the delay. I have set up

https://git.infradead.org/?p=linux-ptp.git
git://git.infradead.org/linux-ptp.git

But I'm not keen on using it without Richard's explicit approval and a
clear understanding of who owns what, *and* the taxonomy we use...

I'm not entirely keen on 'emulated' as the directory name. I don't want
to get too bogged down in bikeshedding, and I know we've done some
already, but I think 'virt' is a better fit? Although when I get my
hands on one of those PTM-capable TimeCards, vmclock won't *just* be
virt... :)

I'm not sure I agree that the drivers being left behind in drivers/ptp
are "IEEE1588 / network-oriented clock drivers" as the commit message
of patch 1 suggests, either. The only one that goes anywhere *near* a
network is ptp_ines.c which has a mii_timestamper interface.

Apart from that they are *all* just PHC clock drivers, aren't they? The
actual network ones live in drivers/net.

So maybe the better answer is to have a more conventional core/drivers
split? Except maybe for ptp_ines is there anything that *network*
maintainers care about, other than the core?

If we do that, add an X: line to exclude the drivers subdir from the
network section in MAINTAINERS, and leave all of drivers/ptp owned by
Richard as it is... do we *need* a new tree?