On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 01:45:07PM +0800, Baolin Wang wrote:
> diff --git a/drivers/ptp/ptp_clock.c b/drivers/ptp/ptp_clock.c
> index 296b0ec..46425ad 100644
> --- a/drivers/ptp/ptp_clock.c
> +++ b/drivers/ptp/ptp_clock.c
> @@ -106,14 +106,30 @@ static int ptp_clock_getres(struct posix_clock *pc,
> struct timespec *tp)
>
> static int ptp_clock_settime(struct posix_clock *pc, const struct timespec
> *tp)
> {
> + ktime_t kt;
> struct ptp_clock *ptp = container_of(pc, struct ptp_clock, clock);
> - return ptp->info->settime(ptp->info, tp);
> +
> + if (ptp->info->setktime) {
> + kt = timespec_to_ktime(*tp);
> + return ptp->info->setktime(ptp->info, kt);
> + } else {
> + return ptp->info->settime(ptp->info, tp);
> + }
This conditional is just the kind of thing I *don't* want to see. In
Documentation/ptp/ptp.txt we read:
** Writing clock drivers
Clock drivers include include/linux/ptp_clock_kernel.h and register
themselves by presenting a 'struct ptp_clock_info' to the
registration method. Clock drivers must implement all of the
functions in the interface. If a clock does not offer a particular
ancillary feature, then the driver should just return -EOPNOTSUPP
from those functions.
Please don't litter the code with tests for NULL methods everywhere.
Thanks,
Richard
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
