From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: javier@javigon.com (=?utf-8?Q?Javier_Gonz=C3=A1lez?=) Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2015 09:05:56 +0200 Subject: [RFC PATCH 2/2] tee: add OP-TEE driver In-Reply-To: <7401865.1Pb83TJP0q@wuerfel> References: <1429257057-7935-1-git-send-email-jens.wiklander@linaro.org> <4984990.7rV4p0zMYU@wuerfel> <3960750D-EAE4-4FA0-9E15-89F9CE39257E@javigon.com> <7401865.1Pb83TJP0q@wuerfel> Message-ID: To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org > On 19 Apr 2015, at 21:47, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > On Sunday 19 April 2015 13:17:20 Javier Gonz?lez wrote: >> >> Only providing user space support would defeat one of the main purposes >> of the driver. We could better organize the patches and divide them into user >> space support and in-kernel support if that is what you mean. In the end >> the interfaces are orthogonal, even though the functionality should be very >> similar. > > Splitting up the patches to separate the user interface from the in-kernel > interface is certainly a good idea, but aside from that, I also agree with > Greg on this point: if you want to establish an in-kernel interface, don't > add any dead code at the beginning, but add it together with the users > of that interface. > > Arnd Thanks for the feedback. We will do so. Javier. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 842 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: