Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Mon, 16 Aug 2021 16:54:01 -0700
From:   Richard Cochran <richardcochran@gmail.com>
To:     Arkadiusz Kubalewski <arkadiusz.kubalewski@intel.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, intel-wired-lan@lists.osuosl.org,
        netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org,
        jesse.brandeburg@intel.com, anthony.l.nguyen@intel.com,
        davem@davemloft.net, kuba@kernel.org, shuah@kernel.org,
        arnd@arndb.de, nikolay@nvidia.com, cong.wang@bytedance.com,
        colin.king@canonical.com, gustavoars@kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC net-next 1/7] ptp: Add interface for acquiring DPLL state
Message-ID: <20210816235400.GA24680@hoboy.vegasvil.org>
References: <20210816160717.31285-1-arkadiusz.kubalewski@intel.com>
 <20210816160717.31285-2-arkadiusz.kubalewski@intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20210816160717.31285-2-arkadiusz.kubalewski@intel.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Aug 16, 2021 at 06:07:11PM +0200, Arkadiusz Kubalewski wrote:
> Previously there was no common interface for monitoring
> synchronization state of Digital Phase Locked Loop.
> 
> Add interface through PTP ioctl subsystem for tools,
> as well as sysfs human-friendly part of the interface.
> 
> enum dpll_state moved to uapi definition, it is required to
> have common definition of DPLL states in uapi.

This has nothing to do with PTP, right?

So why isn't it a RTNL feature instead?

Thanks,
Richard