[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <8a6f05b76c37968d494fce9e555f9c21cca83003.camel@linux.intel.com>
Date: Sat, 07 Sep 2019 20:04:15 +0300
From: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>
To: Stephen Boyd <swboyd@...omium.org>, Peter Huewe <peterhuewe@....de>
Cc: Andrey Pronin <apronin@...omium.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org,
Duncan Laurie <dlaurie@...omium.org>,
Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Guenter Roeck <groeck@...omium.org>,
Alexander Steffen <Alexander.Steffen@...ineon.com>,
Heiko Stuebner <heiko@...ech.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 4/4] tpm: tpm_tis_spi: Support cr50 devices
On Tue, 2019-09-03 at 09:52 -0700, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> That's fair. I'll put the Kconfig option back. There's still the small
> issue of what to do about the module name. Should I rename the
> tpm_tis_spi.c file to something else so that the module can keep the
> same name? Or was the tpm_tis_spi_mod.ko trick from v5 good enough?
Not sure I understood the question correctly but how I think
this should be deployed is:
- A boolean CONFIG_TCG_TIS_SPI_CR50.
- tpm_tis_spi_cr50.c that gets compiled in as part of tpm_tis_spi
when the config option is selected.
I think this would best follow the conventions that are in place
already. Please tell if I got something wrong or if there is some
bottleneck in this framework but this is anyway what I would prefer
with the knowledge I have...
/Jarkko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists