[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZBHPTz8yH57N1g8J@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2023 15:59:43 +0200
From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To: Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>,
Nicolas Pitre <nico@...xnic.net>,
Nicolas Pitre <npitre@...libre.com>
Cc: Tianfei Zhang <tianfei.zhang@...el.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-fpga@...r.kernel.org, ilpo.jarvinen@...ux.intel.com,
russell.h.weight@...el.com, matthew.gerlach@...ux.intel.com,
pierre-louis.bossart@...ux.intel.com, vinicius.gomes@...el.com,
Raghavendra Khadatare <raghavendrax.anand.khadatare@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] ptp: add ToD device driver for Intel FPGA cards
+Cc: Nicolas
On Tue, Mar 14, 2023 at 12:46:48PM -0700, Richard Cochran wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 14, 2023 at 12:47:03PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > 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.
>
> > 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?
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists