-----Original Message-----
From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2023 10:40 PM
To: Zhang, Tianfei <redacted>
Cc: Nicolas Pitre <nico@fluxnic.net>; Richard Cochran
[off-list ref]; netdev@vger.kernel.org; linux-
fpga@vger.kernel.org; ilpo.jarvinen@linux.intel.com; Weight, Russell H
[off-list ref]; matthew.gerlach@linux.intel.com; pierre-
louis.bossart@linux.intel.com; Gomes, Vinicius [off-list ref];
Khadatare, RaghavendraX Anand [off-list ref]
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] ptp: add ToD device driver for Intel FPGA cards

On Tue, Mar 21, 2023 at 02:28:15PM +0000, Zhang, Tianfei wrote:

quoted

quoted

From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2023 9:03 PM
To: Nicolas Pitre <nico@fluxnic.net> On Mon, Mar 20, 2023 at
04:53:07PM -0400, Nicolas Pitre wrote:

quoted

On Mon, 20 Mar 2023, Richard Cochran wrote:

quoted

On Mon, Mar 20, 2023 at 09:43:30AM -0400, Nicolas Pitre wrote:

quoted

Alternatively the above commit can be reverted if no one else
cares. I personally gave up on the idea of a slimmed down
Linux kernel a while ago.

Does this mean I can restore the posix clocks back into the core
unconditionally?

This only means _I_ no longer care. I'm not speaking for others (e.g.
OpenWRT or the like) who might still rely on splitting it out.
Maybe Andy wants to "fix" it?

I would be a good choice, if I have an access to the hardware at hand to test.
That said, I think Richard himself can try to finish that feature
(optional PTP) and on my side I can help with reviewing the code (just Cc me

when needed).

quoted

Handle NULL as a valid parameter (object) to their respective APIs
looks a good idea, but this will be a big change and need fully test
for all devices,

Since it's core change, so a few devices that cover 100% APIs that should handle
optional PTP. I don't think it requires enormous work.

quoted

we can add it on the TODO list.

It would be a good idea.

quoted

So for this patch, are you agree we continue use the existing
ptp_clock_register() API, for example, change my driver like below:

The problem is that it will increase the technical debt.
What about sending with NULL handled variant together with an RFC/RFT that
finishes the optional PTP support?

I think sending the other patchset to fix this NULL handled issue of PTP core will be better?

quoted

      dt->ptp_clock = ptp_clock_register(&dt->ptp_clock_ops, dev);

	ret = PTR_ERR_OR_ZERO(...);
	if (ret)
		return ...

?

quoted

      if (IS_ERR_OR_NULL(dt->ptp_clock))
              return dev_err_probe(dt->dev, IS_ERR_OR_NULL(dt->ptp_clock),
                                   "Unable to register PTP clock\n");

Would you like below:

        dt->ptp_clock = ptp_clock_register(&dt->ptp_clock_ops, dev);
       ret = PTR_ERR_OR_ZERO(dt->ptp_clock);
        return dev_err_probe(dt->dev, ret, "Unable to register PTP clock\n");