Re: [PATCH] tpm: Make SECURITYFS a weak dependency

On Mon, Sep 03, 2018 at 09:51:51PM +0200, Peter Huewe wrote: > While having SECURITYFS enabled for the tpm subsystem is beneficial in > most cases, it is not strictly necessary to have it enabled at all. > Especially on platforms without any boot firmware integration of the TPM > (e.g. raspberry

Re: [PATCH] tpm: Make SECURITYFS a weak dependency

On Mon, Sep 03, 2018 at 09:51:51PM +0200, Peter Huewe wrote: > While having SECURITYFS enabled for the tpm subsystem is beneficial in > most cases, it is not strictly necessary to have it enabled at all. > Especially on platforms without any boot firmware integration of the TPM > (e.g. raspberry

[PATCH] tpm: Make SECURITYFS a weak dependency

While having SECURITYFS enabled for the tpm subsystem is beneficial in most cases, it is not strictly necessary to have it enabled at all. Especially on platforms without any boot firmware integration of the TPM (e.g. raspberry pi) it does not add any value for the tpm subsystem, as there is no

[PATCH] tpm: Make SECURITYFS a weak dependency

While having SECURITYFS enabled for the tpm subsystem is beneficial in most cases, it is not strictly necessary to have it enabled at all. Especially on platforms without any boot firmware integration of the TPM (e.g. raspberry pi) it does not add any value for the tpm subsystem, as there is no