From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jason Gunthorpe Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 0/4] RFC: in-kernel resource manager Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2017 16:20:42 -0700 Message-ID: <20170103232042.GF29656@obsidianresearch.com> References: <20170102132213.22880-1-jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com> <1483374980.2458.13.camel@HansenPartnership.com> <20170102193320.trawto65nkjccbao@intel.com> <1483393248.2458.32.camel@HansenPartnership.com> <20170103135121.4kh3jld5gaq3ptj4@intel.com> <1483461370.2464.19.camel@HansenPartnership.com> <20170103214702.GC29656@obsidianresearch.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: tpmdd-devel-bounces-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org To: Ken Goldman Cc: linux-security-module-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, tpmdd-devel-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org, linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-Id: tpmdd-devel@lists.sourceforge.net On Tue, Jan 03, 2017 at 05:21:28PM -0500, Ken Goldman wrote: > On 1/3/2017 4:47 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > > > > I think we should also consider TPM 1.2 support in all of this, it is > > still a very popular piece of hardware and it is equally able to > > support a RM. > > I suspect that TPM 2.0 and TPM 1.2 are so different that there may be > little or no code in common. Sure, but the uapi should make sense for both versions, ie, I don't want to see a tpm 2.0 specific char dev. Jason ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot