[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20161028181914.xkse5orwwp42dvj3@sirena.org.uk>
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2016 19:19:14 +0100
From: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To: "Andrew F. Davis" <afd@...com>
Cc: Jens Wiklander <jens.wiklander@...aro.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>, valentin.manea@...wei.com,
jean-michel.delorme@...com, emmanuel.michel@...com,
javier@...igon.com,
Jason Gunthorpe <jgunthorpe@...idianresearch.com>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Michal Simek <michal.simek@...inx.com>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Nishanth Menon <nm@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v12 RESEND 0/4] generic TEE subsystem
On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 10:43:24AM -0500, Andrew F. Davis wrote:
> Do we see this as a chicken and egg situation, or is there any harm
> beyond the pains of supporting an out-of-tree driver for a while, to
> wait until we have at least one other TEE to add to this subsystem
> before merging?
We haven't been overburneded with TEE vendors wanting to get their
driver code into mainline - do we have any reasonable prospect of other
TEE vendors with an interest in mainline turning up in any kind of
reasonable timeframe?
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (456 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists