[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <DM4PR12MB5769BB69B97F77DBA9ED2935C3779@DM4PR12MB5769.namprd12.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Wed, 10 May 2023 15:10:55 +0000
From: Krishna Yarlagadda <kyarlagadda@...dia.com>
To: Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>,
Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
CC: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@...nel.org>,
"jsnitsel@...hat.com" <jsnitsel@...hat.com>,
"robh+dt@...nel.org" <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
"peterhuewe@....de" <peterhuewe@....de>,
"jgg@...pe.ca" <jgg@...pe.ca>,
"krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org"
<krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
"linux-spi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-spi@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org" <linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org" <linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Jonathan Hunter <jonathanh@...dia.com>,
Sowjanya Komatineni <skomatineni@...dia.com>,
Laxman Dewangan <ldewangan@...dia.com>
Subject: RE: [Patch V10 2/3] tpm_tis-spi: Add hardware wait polling
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>
> Sent: 24 April 2023 21:02
> To: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
> Cc: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@...nel.org>; Krishna Yarlagadda
> <kyarlagadda@...dia.com>; jsnitsel@...hat.com; robh+dt@...nel.org;
> peterhuewe@....de; jgg@...pe.ca; krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org;
> linux-spi@...r.kernel.org; linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org; linux-
> integrity@...r.kernel.org; linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org; Jonathan Hunter
> <jonathanh@...dia.com>; Sowjanya Komatineni
> <skomatineni@...dia.com>; Laxman Dewangan <ldewangan@...dia.com>
> Subject: Re: [Patch V10 2/3] tpm_tis-spi: Add hardware wait polling
>
> On Mon, Apr 24, 2023 at 04:18:45PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 24, 2023 at 04:46:24PM +0200, Thierry Reding wrote:
> >
> > > Would it make sense for you to pick up patch 2/3 as well? As far as I
> > > can tell there's a build dependency on patch 1/3 because of the newly
> > > added SPI_TPM_HW_FLOW symbol.
> >
> > I'll include it in my pull request for spi this time round so it should
> > end up in -rc1, my thinking was that I was happy with the SPI bits and
> > if it was in -rc1 then the TPM bits could be handled without cross tree
> > issues when the review was sorted (which it is now but wasn't at the
> > time). If the SPI side doesn't make -rc1 for some reason I can pick up
> > the TPM bit as well, and/or do a signed tag.
>
> Sounds good.
>
> Thanks,
> Thierry
Mark,
Now that SPI changes are in, can we pull this TPM change for rc2.
Will this be picked into SPI or TPM list?
Thanks,
KY
Powered by blists - more mailing lists