[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <C29F84BF-7972-4F9B-BEF1-6857BCEA26A0@javigon.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2015 09:05:56 +0200
From: Javier González <javier@...igon.com>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc: linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
Valentin Manea <valentin.manea@...wei.com>,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, emmanuel.michel@...com,
Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
jean-michel.delorme@...com, tpmdd-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
Jens Wiklander <jens.wiklander@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/2] tee: add OP-TEE driver
> On 19 Apr 2015, at 21:47, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de> wrote:
>
> On Sunday 19 April 2015 13:17:20 Javier González 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.
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (843 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists