Hi Christophe,
On 13 August 2015 at 14:28, Christophe Ricard
wrote:
> Hi Simon,
>
> On 13/08/2015 03:30, Simon Glass wrote:
>>
>> Hi Christophe,
>>
>> On 11 August 2015 at 15:47, christophe.ricard
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Simon,
>>>
>>> As per my comment on patch 6, i would disagree as well on this
Hi Simon,
On 13/08/2015 03:30, Simon Glass wrote:
Hi Christophe,
On 11 August 2015 at 15:47, christophe.ricard
wrote:
Hi Simon,
As per my comment on patch 6, i would disagree as well on this one.
It tpm_vendor_specific structure is convenient for ST33ZP24 for example.
Best Regards
Christoph
Hi Christophe,
On 11 August 2015 at 15:47, christophe.ricard
wrote:
> Hi Simon,
>
> As per my comment on patch 6, i would disagree as well on this one.
> It tpm_vendor_specific structure is convenient for ST33ZP24 for example.
>
> Best Regards
> Christophe
>
As things stand they are only used in
Hi Simon,
As per my comment on patch 6, i would disagree as well on this one.
It tpm_vendor_specific structure is convenient for ST33ZP24 for example.
Best Regards
Christophe
On 11/08/2015 16:47, Simon Glass wrote:
The function methods in struct tpm_vendor_specific just call local functions.
C
The function methods in struct tpm_vendor_specific just call local functions.
Change the code to use a direct call.
Signed-off-by: Simon Glass
---
drivers/tpm/tpm_tis_i2c.c | 12
drivers/tpm/tpm_tis_i2c.h | 4
2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/dr
5 matches
Mail list logo