On Sat, Oct 08, 2022 at 04:05:17PM -0700, Richard Cochran wrote: > > So I really don't see any reason for merging the Virtual Port patch > series. It merely adds a second way to accomplish existing > functionality, but having two ways of doing the same thing violated > best software design practice.
Having said that, I'm not *totally* against the idea of adding a Virtual Port that participates in the BCMA explicitly. As I said in another thread, it would be nice to have the system clock (think phc2sys) and/or the GPS clock (think ts2phc) act like first class PTP nodes, generating and consuming Announce messages, maintaining the relevant data sets, and running the BCMA explicitly. However, the patch series presented by SyncMonk doesn't follow through in that respect. Thanks, Richard _______________________________________________ Linuxptp-devel mailing list Linuxptp-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linuxptp-devel
