On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 01:05:33PM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 03:02:15PM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 11:42:51PM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> >
> > > > Personally, I'd sequence this commit right after your 'tpm: two-phase
> > > > chip ma
On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 03:02:15PM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 11:42:51PM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
>
> > > Personally, I'd sequence this commit right after your 'tpm: two-phase
> > > chip management functions' commit because it makes it much saner (no
> > > half st
On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 11:42:51PM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > Personally, I'd sequence this commit right after your 'tpm: two-phase
> > chip management functions' commit because it makes it much saner (no
> > half step toward the new functions). I assume this is a theoretical
> > problem? O
On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 10:55:51AM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 11:22:41AM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > * Traversal of the ACPI device tree was not done right. It should lookup
> > PPI only under the ACPI device that it is associated. Otherwise, it could
> > matc
On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 11:22:41AM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> * Traversal of the ACPI device tree was not done right. It should lookup
> PPI only under the ACPI device that it is associated. Otherwise, it could
> match to a wrong PPI interface if there are two TPM devices in the device
>
5 matches
Mail list logo