On Wed, Nov 05, 2014 at 10:48:36AM -0700, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 05, 2014 at 09:40:29AM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
>
> > > I mean, if we have a patch that does:
> > >
> > > struct tpm_chip {
> > >struct device cdev; // the class device
> > >struct device *pdev; // the 'p
On Wed, Nov 05, 2014 at 09:40:29AM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > I mean, if we have a patch that does:
> >
> > struct tpm_chip {
> >struct device cdev; // the class device
> >struct device *pdev; // the 'platform' device chip is bound too
> >
> >struct device *dev = pdev; // Tem
On Tue, Nov 04, 2014 at 11:14:33AM -0700, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 04, 2014 at 01:47:34PM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
>
> > > > I used the class 'tpm' only for TPM 2.x because I didn't want to
> > > > break the binary compatibility for TPM 1.x anyway. In ideal situtation
> > > > both
On Tue, Nov 04, 2014 at 01:49:18PM -0700, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 04, 2014 at 10:38:43PM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
>
> > > Then a patch: Drop misc_register entirely, no compat stuff. Explain
> > > clearly the resulting sysfs changes, CC the various people who monitor
> > > the sys
On Tue, Nov 04, 2014 at 10:38:43PM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > Then a patch: Drop misc_register entirely, no compat stuff. Explain
> > clearly the resulting sysfs changes, CC the various people who monitor
> > the sysfs API, act on any feedback. I'm hoping it is an OK change.
> > [ If it is
On Tue, Nov 04, 2014 at 11:14:33AM -0700, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 04, 2014 at 01:47:34PM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
>
> > > > I used the class 'tpm' only for TPM 2.x because I didn't want to
> > > > break the binary compatibility for TPM 1.x anyway. In ideal situtation
> > > > both
On Tue, Nov 04, 2014 at 01:47:34PM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > > I used the class 'tpm' only for TPM 2.x because I didn't want to
> > > break the binary compatibility for TPM 1.x anyway. In ideal situtation
> > > both would be character devices inside the class 'tpm' and there would
> > > be
On Tue, Nov 04, 2014 at 01:47:34PM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> On Mon, 2014-11-03 at 14:38 -0700, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 03, 2014 at 07:41:01AM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> >
> > > I used the class 'tpm' only for TPM 2.x because I didn't want to
> > > break the binary compat
On Mon, 2014-11-03 at 14:38 -0700, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 03, 2014 at 07:41:01AM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
>
> > I used the class 'tpm' only for TPM 2.x because I didn't want to
> > break the binary compatibility for TPM 1.x anyway. In ideal situtation
> > both would be character
On Mon, Nov 03, 2014 at 07:41:01AM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> I used the class 'tpm' only for TPM 2.x because I didn't want to
> break the binary compatibility for TPM 1.x anyway. In ideal situtation
> both would be character devices inside the class 'tpm' and there would
> be sysfs attribute
On Sun, Nov 02, 2014 at 02:33:05PM -0700, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 01, 2014 at 11:01:35AM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > Added own class for TPM devices that is used for TPM 2.0 and onwards.
> > For TPM1 old device structure is kept for backwards compatibility.
> >
> > Each struct t
On Sat, Nov 01, 2014 at 11:01:35AM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> Added own class for TPM devices that is used for TPM 2.0 and onwards.
> For TPM1 old device structure is kept for backwards compatibility.
>
> Each struct tpm_chip represents a character device that is associated
> to the tpm devic
12 matches
Mail list logo
