From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Stefan Berger" Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 4/5] Initialize TPM and get durations and timeouts Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2016 22:56:47 -0500 Message-ID: <201602120356.u1C3usEe002034@d03av04.boulder.ibm.com> References: <20160210222313.GA7047@obsidianresearch.com> <201602110038.u1B0cuE0030670@d03av05.boulder.ibm.com> <20160211070426.GB9307@intel.com> <201602111534.u1BFYvRs019573@d01av03.pok.ibm.com> <20160211181208.GA6285@obsidianresearch.com> <201602111911.u1BJB2nK017410@d01av03.pok.ibm.com> <20160211194810.GA24211@obsidianresearch.com> <201602112210.u1BMAYPe015452@d03av01.boulder.ibm.com> <20160211221822.GA16304@obsidianresearch.com> <201602112226.u1BMQZ59031657@d01av02.pok.ibm.com> <20160211235611.GB16304@obsidianresearch.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============8735304070803288526==" Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20160211235611.GB16304-ePGOBjL8dl3ta4EC/59zMFaTQe2KTcn/@public.gmane.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: tpmdd-devel-bounces-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org To: Jason Gunthorpe Cc: dhowells-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org, tpmdd-devel-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org, dwmw2-wEGCiKHe2LqWVfeAwA7xHQ@public.gmane.org List-Id: tpmdd-devel@lists.sourceforge.net --===============8735304070803288526== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_alternative 0015B63585257F57_=" --=_alternative 0015B63585257F57_= Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Jason Gunthorpe wrote on 02/11/2016=20 06:56:11 PM: >=20 > On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 05:26:24PM -0500, Stefan Berger wrote: >=20 > > > What is the point of tpmm=5Fchip=5Fdev? > > So that the usage model of the chip is the same. We get this in the > > tpm-vtpm.c with tpm=5Falloc=5Fchip + tpmm=5Fchip=5Fdev while all oth= ers can > > call tpmm=5Fchip=5Falloc, which combines the two. >=20 > No need, just don't use devm in vtpm, that is even better. The > standard devm idiom is a with and without version. Updated the branch. Are you going to upstream your patch? Otherwise I=20 would just add your Signed-off-by to it if that's ok ? https://github.com/stefanberger/linux/tree/vtpm-driver.v3 >=20 > > > Just have the vtpm driver do device=5Finitialize, then tpm=5Falloc= =20 and > > > have the release function do put=5Fdevice on the chip. No need for= =20 devm > > > at all >=20 > > I would also like to have a tpm=5Fchip=5Fput (static inline in tpm.h= ?) > > that wraps the put=5Fdevice. To me this is more intuitive than=20 calling > > put=5Fdevice() as a counter-part to tpm=5Fchip=5Falloc. >=20 > Many in the kernel community would call this sort of wrapping > obfuscation.. We don't have a put=5Fplatform=5Fdevice, etc for > instance. Naked put=5Fdevice in an error path is fine. I guess it's a matter of getting used to. I still like being 'guided' by=20 function names... Stefan >=20 > Jason >=20 --=_alternative 0015B63585257F57_= Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Jason Gunthorpe <jgunthorpe-ePGOBjL8dl3ta4EC/59zMFaTQe2KTcn/@public.gmane.org> wrote on 02/11/2016 06:56:11 PM:


= >
> On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 05:26:24PM -0500, Stefan Berger wrote= :
>
> >    > What is the point of tpmm=5Fchip= =5Fdev?
> >    So that the usage model of the chip is th= e same. We get this in the
> >    tpm-vtpm.c with tpm=5Falloc=5F= chip + tpmm=5Fchip=5Fdev while all others can
> >    call tpmm=5Fchip=5Falloc, which co= mbines the two.
>
> No need, just don't use devm in vtpm, that= is even better. The
> standard devm idiom is a with and without vers= ion.

Updated the branch. Are you goin= g to upstream your patch? Otherwise I would just add your Signed-off-by to it if that's ok ?

https://github.com/stefanbe= rger/linux/tree/vtpm-driver.v3

&g= t;
> >    > Just have the vtpm driver do device=5Fin= itialize, then tpm=5Falloc and
> >    > have the release functi= on do put=5Fdevice on the chip. No need for devm
> >    > at all
> > >    I would also like to have a tpm=5Fchip=5Fput (stat= ic inline in tpm.h ?)
> >    that wraps the put=5Fdevice. T= o me this is more intuitive than calling
> >    put=5Fdevice() as a counter-part to = tpm=5Fchip=5Falloc.
>
> Many in the kernel community would cal= l this sort of wrapping
> obfuscation.. We don't have a put=5Fplatfor= m=5Fdevice, etc for
> instance. Naked put=5Fdevice in an error path i= s fine.

I guess it's a matter of gett= ing used to. I still like being 'guided' by function names...

   Stefan

>
>= ; Jason
>

--=_alternative 0015B63585257F57_=-- --===============8735304070803288526== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Site24x7 APM Insight: Get Deep Visibility into Application Performance APM + Mobile APM + RUM: Monitor 3 App instances at just $35/Month Monitor end-to-end web transactions and take corrective actions now Troubleshoot faster and improve end-user experience. Signup Now! http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=272487151&iu=/4140 --===============8735304070803288526== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ tpmdd-devel mailing list tpmdd-devel-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/tpmdd-devel --===============8735304070803288526==--