linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] Defining a home/maintenance model for non-NIC PHC devices using the /dev/ptpX API

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <51e8d8ce-f291-4e31-a938-2c1a0e8684c2@linux.alibaba.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2026 22:29:41 +0800
From: Wen Gu <guwen@...ux.alibaba.com>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
 "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
 LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
 Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>
Cc: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Dust Li <dust.li@...ux.alibaba.com>,
 Xuan Zhuo <xuanzhuo@...ux.alibaba.com>, Andrew Lunn <andrew+netdev@...n.ch>,
 David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>, virtualization@...ts.linux.dev,
 Nick Shi <nick.shi@...adcom.com>, Sven Schnelle <svens@...ux.ibm.com>,
 Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, linux-clk@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] Defining a home/maintenance model for non-NIC PHC devices
 using the /dev/ptpX API



On 2026/1/9 10:56, Wen Gu wrote:
> 
> #
> ## Proposal
> #
> 
> 1. Reorganize drivers/ptp/ to make the interface/implementation split
>     explicit,
> 
>     * drivers/ptp/core      : PTP core infrastructure and API.
>                               (e.g. ptp_chardev.c, ptp_clock.c,
>                                ptp_sysfs.c, etc.)
> 
>     * drivers/ptp/pure      : Non-network ("pure clock") implementation,
>                               they are typically platform/architecture/
>                               virtualization-provided time sources.
>                               (e.g. ptp_kvm, ptp_vmw, ptp_vmclock,
>                                ptp_s390, etc.)
> 
>     * drivers/ptp/*         : Network timestamping oriented implementation,
>                               they primarily used together with IEEE1588
>                               over the network.
>                               (e.g. ptp_qoriq, ptp_pch, ptp_dp83640,
>                                ptp_idt82p33 etc.)
> 

Thanks for the feedback so far. It seems we are close to consensus on
the directory split, as [1] summarized:

- drivers/ptp/core       : PTP core infrastructure and API
- drivers/ptp/1588       : network/IEEE 1588 oriented PTP clocks
- drivers/ptp/emulating  : platform/hardware/hypervisor-provided pure clocks

For how the existing drivers in `drivers/ptp` are categorized into the
directories above, please also refer to [1] and the follow-up replies.

> 2. Transition drivers/ptp/pure from netdev maintainership to
>     clock/time maintainership (with an appropriate MAINTAINERS entry,
>     e.g. PURE TIME PHC), since these PHC implementations are primarily
>     clock devices and not network-oriented. New similar drivers can be
>     added under drivers/ptp/pure as well.


Then the open item now is maintainership and the merge path.

Based on previous guidance[2] and the current MAINTAINERS structure,
it seems reasonable to have it maintained under the clock/timekeeping
domain (following the existing timekeeping pull chain), with a
dedicated MAINTAINERS entry.


Hi Thomas and clock/timekeeping maintainers,

Would you agree with this approach? If so, could you please advise on
the appropriate maintainer/reviewer for this MAINTAINERS entry?

Below is a strawman MAINTAINERS entry (happy to adjust):

EMULATING PTP CLOCK SUPPORT
L:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
S:     Maintained
F:     drivers/ptp/emulating/*


We (Alibaba) are also willing to be the maintainer for this entry as
a fallback.

[1] https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/b5a60753-85ed-4d61-a652-568393e0dff3@linux.alibaba.com/
[2] https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/20251216135848.174e010f@kernel.org/

Regards.