Re: [PATCH] ptp: Add vDSO-style vmclock support

["Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>]

On Thu, Jul 25, 2024 at 01:31:19PM +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Thu, 2024-07-25 at 08:29 -0400, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 25, 2024 at 01:27:49PM +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2024-07-25 at 08:17 -0400, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Jul 25, 2024 at 10:56:05AM +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
> > > > > > Do you want to just help complete virtio-rtc then? Would be easier than
> > > > > > trying to keep two specs in sync.
> > > > > 
> > > > > The ACPI version is much more lightweight and doesn't take up a
> > > > > valuable PCI slot#. (I know, you can do virtio without PCI but that's
> > > > > complex in other ways).
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Hmm, should we support virtio over ACPI? Just asking.
> > > 
> > > Given that we support virtio DT bindings, and the ACPI "PRP0001" device
> > > exists with a DSM method which literally returns DT properties,
> > > including such properties as "compatible=virtio,mmio" ... do we
> > > already?
> > > 
> > > 
> > 
> > In a sense, but you are saying that is too complex?
> > Can you elaborate?
> 
> No, I think it's fine. I encourage the use of the PRP0001 device to
> expose DT devices through ACPI. I was just reminding you of its
> existence.
> 
> 

Confused. You said "I know, you can do virtio without PCI but that's
complex in other ways" as the explanation why you are doing a custom
protocol.

-- 
MST