Hi Christophe, On 13 August 2015 at 14:32, Christophe Ricard <christophe.ric...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Simon, > > On 13/08/2015 03:30, Simon Glass wrote: >> >> Hi Christophe, >> >> On 11 August 2015 at 15:47, christophe.ricard >> <christophe.ric...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> Hi Simon, >>> >>> Locality concept are valid almost on any chip assuming if no locality are >>> supported the default one is locality 0. >>> I would leave this change open for discussion. >>> >>> However, as per patch 06 & 07, i would keep req_complete_mask, >>> req_complete_val, req_canceled, timeout_a, timeout_b, timeout_c, >>> timeout_d >>> in tpm_vendor_specific structure as this is chip specific. >>> >>> I really think tpm_vendor_specific is usefull for managing different kind >>> of >>> TPM "the same way"/following standards. >> >> That code belongs in the uclass I think. If there really are generic >> settings that are needed for all TPMs then it should sit there. We >> don't want to have an additional layer of stuff that doesn't relate to >> driver model. > > After reviewing your previous comments, i think we can drop this > tpm_vendor_specific structure to simplify the code a bit. > However, the work we are doing may stick only to TPM1.2. I think it will be > fine as we have only drivers for those kind of TPMs. > I believe a new uclass may be necessary when going to provide support TPM > 2.0. > > In short, may be we can anticipate that and make it explicit in the uclass > name ? (UCLASS_TPM12 ?)
Ick, I'd rather worry about this when we have a problem. Regardsimon _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot