Re: [PATCH v1] ptp: add ToD device driver for Intel FPGA cards
From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
Date: 2023-03-20 13:20:48
Also in:
linux-fpga
On Wed, Mar 15, 2023 at 10:37:58AM -0400, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
On Wed, 15 Mar 2023, Andy Shevchenko wrote:quoted
On Tue, Mar 14, 2023 at 12:46:48PM -0700, Richard Cochran wrote:quoted
On Tue, Mar 14, 2023 at 12:47:03PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:quoted
The semantics of the above is similar to gpiod_get_optional() and since NULL is a valid return in such cases, the PTP has to handle this transparently to the user. Otherwise it's badly designed API which has to be fixed.Does it now? Whatever.quoted
TL;DR: If I'm mistaken, I would like to know why.git log. git blame. Get to know the tools of trade.So, the culprit seems the commit d1cbfd771ce8 ("ptp_clock: Allow for it to be optional") which did it half way. Now I would like to know why the good idea got bad implementation. Nicolas?I'd be happy to help but as presented I simply don't know what you're talking about. Please give me more context.
When your change introduced the optionality of the above mentioned API, i.e. ptp_clock_register(), the function started returning NULL, which is fine. What's not in my opinion is to ask individual drivers to handle it. That said, if we take a look at gpiod_*_optional() or clk_*_optional() we may notice that they handle NULL as a valid parameter (object) to their respective APIs and individual drivers shouldn't take care about that. Why PTP is so special? -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko