[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <73rqs90r-nn9o-s981-9557-q70no2435176@syhkavp.arg>
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2023 10:37:58 -0400 (EDT)
From: Nicolas Pitre <nico@...xnic.net>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
cc: Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>,
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
On Wed, 15 Mar 2023, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> +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?
I'd be happy to help but as presented I simply don't know what you're
talking about. Please give me more context.
Nicolas
Powered by blists - more mailing lists