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

Jakub Kicinski
2022-12-09T00:36:41Z

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?!