Re: [PATCH net-next v5 1/2] ptp: introduce Alibaba CIPU PHC driver

[Wen Gu]

On 2026/1/9 17:25, David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Sun, 2026-01-04 at 14:11 +0800, Wen Gu wrote:
> > IIUC, the main block is that you don't want to maintain these pure
> > phc clocks, as you mentioned in [3]. I agree with this as well. So I
> > propose to group these pure phc drivers together (e.g. drivers/phc)
> > and move them from the network maintenance domain to the clock maintenance
> > domain.
>
> I think that makes sense. These clocks can still be registered as PTP
> clocks because that's one of the most sensible interfaces to userspace,
> but the implementations can live elsewhere outside the networking
> maintenance domain.

Yes. The PTP interface has become a common choice for exposing these
clocks to userspace, and it is not limited to NIC-based implementations.

I have posted an RFC to reach a consensus on organizing these clocks:

https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/0afe19db-9c7f-4228-9fc2-f7b34c4bc227@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/

> In a lot of cases we'd want to use them for RTC too, so that the
> kernel's CLOCK_REALTIME can be initialised from them. And especially
> for microvms I'd like to *synchronize* the kernel's clock from them
> automatically too.

This is also a good use-case that supports having these clocks available.

Regards.