Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] MAINTAINERS: update PTP maintainer entries after directory split
Jakub Kicinski <[email protected]> Mon, 1 Jun 2026 18:52:26 -0700
| Newsgroups | org.kernel.vger.linux-fpga,dev.linux.lists.imx,org.kernel.vger.linux-kernel,org.kernel.vger.linux-s390,org.kernel.vger.netdev |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Mon, 01 Jun 2026 17:53:49 +0100 David Woodhouse wrote: > On Mon, 2026-06-01 at 08:20 -0700, Richard Cochran wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 01, 2026 at 08:03:26AM +0100, David Woodhouse wrote: =20 > > > If we move all the plain non-network PHC drivers (which, as noted, > > > is > > > basically *all* of them) into a drivers/ subdirectory, then perhaps > > > we =20 > >=20 > > Sorry, just catching up here, so the idea is to have > >=20 > > =C2=A0linux/drivers/ptp/drivers=C2=A0 ? =20 >=20 > That is my current suggestion. >=20 > It stems from Jakub's response in > https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/ that "I > really wish someone stepped up and created a separate subsystem for all > these cloud / vm clocks. They have nothing to do with PTP." >=20 > There was some further bikeshedding in > https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/0afe19db-9c7f-4228-9fc2-f7b34c4bc227@linux= .alibaba.com/ > around how to split 'emulated' from other hardware drivers, but I don't > much like that taxonomy. Some of these "virtual" clocks could just as > easily exist in hardware with PTM too. Not sure I fully understand what you mean. Practically the distinction is very clear - the virt devices are implemented by a hypervisor and/or IPU which may have some HW gadgets and PTM support but beyond that are software-defined. We don't need help maintaining drivers for fixed-ASIC (?) clocks, atomic clocks etc. Those are usually time counter + misc. They are not "devices" which know the wall clock time better than the host :\ IOW the "does it have a NIC" is not a great distinction. A better oneliner would be "does it purport to know real time better=20 than the host" > My observation is that with the sole exception of ptp_inet.c, *all* of > the actual PHC drivers that live in drivers/ptp instead of drivers/net > are "pure clock" drivers, so perhaps we split those all out into > drivers/ptp/drivers/ and exclude them from the netdev maintenance? >=20 > I'm reluctantly prepared to host and help maintain a drivers tree if > it's necessary, but equally as happy to let you own it.=20 No strong feelings here, but atomic clocks will start spilling into DPLL and SyncE pretty quickly.