On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 07:43:16AM -0400, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 09:25:36PM -0400, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 03:20:38PM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > > > On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 05:13:04PM -0400, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > > > > > Other DT platforms like ARM will use the bindings defined in > > > > > Documentation/DeviceTree. > > > > > > > > So how do I know that this the right way to specify the attibutes for a > > > > TPM device and all vendors would like to have the attributes like this? > > > > > > If you accept the patch it becomes the right way for DT. > > > > OK, thanks for educating me with this! My knowledge of DT is thin. I wasn't > > aware that things where so unstandardized. > > > > I'll take that point of view for the next version of the patch set and > > just try to make sense whether the attributes make sense to me. > > I asked my employer to order me a Raspberry PI 3 in order to have a > device that utilizes a device tree instead of ACPI (and also to have > something to test SPI and I2C connected TPMs). I'm looking forward to > use that to test this patch set.
Or actually after some investigation Minnowboard is a better choice. It's quite trivial to test either ACPI or DT with it, it seems. /Jarkko ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ tpmdd-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/tpmdd-devel
