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
