Re: [RFC PATCH v4 4/4] ptp_ocp: implement DPLL ops

Jiri Pirko
2022-12-09T09:32:16Z

Fri, Dec 09, 2022 at 01:36:34AM CET, kuba@kernel.org wrote:
>On Thu, 8 Dec 2022 12:22:09 +0100 Jiri Pirko wrote:
>> >To what practical benefit? Where do we draw the line? Do you want
>> >PTP clocks to also be auxdevs? DPLL lives in netdev, we don't have
>> >to complicate things. auxdev is a Conway's law solution.
>>
>> Auxdev infra is quite simple to implement, I'm not sure what do you mean
>> by complicating thing here.
>
>You didn't answer my question - what's the benefit?
>We're not faced with A or B choice. We have a A or nothing choice.
>Doing nothing is easy.
>
>> >mlx5 already looks like sausage meat, it's already minced so you can
>> >fit it there quite easily, but don't force it on non-enterprise devices.
>>
>> Not forcing, just suggesting. It's a low-hanging fruit, why not reach
>> it?
>
>What is the fruit?
>
>> >There is non 1:1 relationship with a bus device and subsystem in Linux,
>> >LMK when you convinced Greg otherwise.
>>
>> Sure there is not. But maybe that is due to the simple fact that auxdev
>> was introduces, what, 2 years back? My point is, we are introducing new
>> subsystem, wouldn't it be nice to start it clean?
>
>Still not getting what you think is clean.. Making all driver-facing
>objects in the kernel be a fake bus-device?!

Nevermind.