Re: [tpmdd-devel] [PATCH 1/1] TPM: STMicroelectronics ST33 I2C KERNEL 3.x.x

[Kent Yoder <key@linux.vnet.ibm.com>]

On Wed, Dec 05, 2012 at 09:20:47PM +0100, Peter Hüwe wrote:
> Hi Kent,
> > 
> >   Heh, duh, well of course it is. I've now staged everything I'm
> > planning on pushing at:
> > 
> > git://github.com/shpedoikal/linux.git tpmdd-12-05-12
> > 
> > Please test and let me know if I missed anything.
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > Kent
> > 
> > > Kent
> > > 
> 
> (I'm still writing this on behalf of myself ;)
> 
> <pedantic mode on - please don't take it personally>
> While I really appreciate you helping Mathias out here, I'm not so sure 
> whether an offlist discussion of a driver submission is a really good idea. 
> I did not see any v2 / improvements on list and now it's commited (?!)

  This is already at least v3 of the driver IIRC. And its not fully
committed at all, its just in a staging tree. I can blow it away at any
time if we find problems.

> There's no need to argue here, I'm fine with this,
> but I'd highly appreciate if at least the result is published again in the 
> future on the mailing list, for proper review. 

  Not a problem. usually I'd attach any updates I planned to commit for
public review, then if anything wasn't made public before I issue my
pull request to send them to security-next, I'd append the full diff to
the pull request at that time. Either way, all changes will hit a list
at some point in time.

> If the mailfilter got the mails I apologize.
> <pedantic mode off>
> 
> Can you perhaps post the message to the list, so a proper review is possible?
> 
> I thought the Mathias has changed the naming of the files? I don't see that in 
> your commit.

  Good catch, this is the kind of review I was asking for. :-)

> 
> The version you committed to that branch still has some of the items of my 
> first review. (e.g.
>  * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
> * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
> * the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or
> * (at your option) any later version.)
> 
> -> The (possible) GPL v3 clause has to go away for the kernel, but I'm not a 
> lawyer.

  A GPLv3 clause would say "v3 or any later version". This should be
fine.

Kent

> 
> 
> Thanks,
> Peter
>