Re: [edk2-devel] [PATCH 1/6] UefiCpuPkg/LocalApicTimerDxe: Duplicate OvmfPkg/LocalApicTimerDxe driver

["Michael D Kinney" <michael.d.kinney@intel.com>]

Hi Ray,

I think nesting may be possible in physical platforms, but very hard to induce.

One option is to consolidate to a single LocalApicTimerDxe implementation
in the UefiCpuPkg, but allow the platform DSC to either specify a Null
NestedInterruptTplLib for physical platforms or the full one from the
OvmfPkg for VM use cases.

The other changes could be included for OvmfPkg use cases.  If the VM
does not support the CPUID leafs, then the PCD value should be used.

Mike

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pedro Falcato <pedro.falcato@gmail.com>
> Sent: Monday, January 15, 2024 1:00 AM
> To: devel@edk2.groups.io; Ni, Ray <ray.ni@intel.com>
> Cc: Kinney, Michael D <michael.d.kinney@intel.com>; Desimone, Nathaniel
> L <nathaniel.l.desimone@intel.com>; Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com>;
> Kumar, Rahul R <rahul.r.kumar@intel.com>; Gerd Hoffmann
> <kraxel@redhat.com>
> Subject: Re: [edk2-devel] [PATCH 1/6] UefiCpuPkg/LocalApicTimerDxe:
> Duplicate OvmfPkg/LocalApicTimerDxe driver
> 
> On Mon, Jan 15, 2024 at 8:04 AM Ni, Ray <ray.ni@intel.com> wrote:
> >
> > This commit only duplicates the OvmfPkg/LocalApicTimerDxe.
> > Following commits will enhance the driver.
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Please describe why you're doing this change. i.e what's your use case
> for LocalApicTimerDxe, and why are you duplicating this instead of
> moving OvmfPkg's (why do we need to maintain 2 separate versions of
> what is essentially the same driver)?
> 
> Thanks,
> Pedro


-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#113841): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/113841
Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/103734961/7686176
Group Owner: devel+owner@edk2.groups.io
Unsubscribe: https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/leave/12367111/7686176/1913456212/xyzzy [rebecca@openfw.io]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-