From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jarkko Sakkinen Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] char: tpm: add new driver for tpm i2c ptp Date: Fri, 05 Jul 2019 14:28:07 +0300 Message-ID: <45603af2fc8374a90ef9e81a67083395cc9c7190.camel@linux.intel.com> References: <20190628151327.206818-1-oshrialkoby85@gmail.com> <8e6ca8796f229c5dc94355437351d7af323f0c56.camel@linux.intel.com> <79e8bfd2-2ed1-cf48-499c-5122229beb2e@infineon.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Oshri Alkobi , Alexander Steffen Cc: robh+dt@kernel.org, mark.rutland@arm.com, peterhuewe@gmx.de, jgg@ziepe.ca, arnd@arndb.de, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, oshri.alkoby@nuvoton.com, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org, gcwilson@us.ibm.com, kgoldman@us.ibm.com, nayna@linux.vnet.ibm.com, dan.morav@nuvoton.com, tomer.maimon@nuvoton.com List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 2019-07-04 at 12:48 -0500, Oshri Alkobi wrote: > Alex, Jarkko, thank you very much for your feedbacks! Please configure your email client to use plain text. > I totally agree, there are some duplications that can be common, indeed it > will require some work in tpm_tis_core. > Since I believe it is not going to happen soon, I would suggest to examine > what duplications can currently be dropped from the new driver, so the kernel > will support the PTP I2C interface in the meantime. > I will appreciate getting ideas about any tpm_tis_core logic that currently > can be used as is by the new drive. I rather wait for a solution that integrates with our mature stack for TIS (or these days FIFO) than integrate something half-baked. If you want something in, please do right things right. What you are proposing would mean maintaining duplicate stacks forever. > Since the TIS is an old specification that mostly defines FIFO for TPM1.2 I > would say the name tpm_tis_i2c does not completely reflect its goal. However > we really don't have any problem with any name that the group will agree on. > Does tpm_ptp_i2c sound better than the current name? Absolutely not going to use that name. The naming convention is what it is for other drivers that are adapt tpm_tis_core to different HW interfaces. /Jarkko