Hi, On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 3:50 PM, Marek Vasut <ma...@denx.de> wrote: > Dear Simon Glass, > >> Hi Wolfgang, >> >> On Sat, Nov 3, 2012 at 8:29 AM, Wolfgang Denk <w...@denx.de> wrote: >> > Dear Simon Glass, >> > >> > In message <1351902453-27956-18-git-send-email-...@chromium.org> you wrote: >> >> From: Luigi Semenzato <semenz...@chromium.org> >> >> >> >> Add a simple command to stress-test a TPM (Trusted Platform Module). >> >> >> >> Signed-off-by: Luigi Semenzato <semenz...@chromium.org> >> >> >> >> Commit-Ready: Stefan Reinauer <reina...@google.com> >> >> Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org> >> >> --- >> >> >> >> common/cmd_tpm.c | 93 >> >> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--- 1 files changed, >> >> 87 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) >> > >> > See previous comments about TPM code. Please let's dump all this >> > unused stuff. >> >> As mentioned, patches are pending to enable this for two boards (ARM and >> x86). > > Hm, does this TPM argument still go on? > > Actually, my position is I'd be all for dumping it right away (I even posted a > patch some time ago), if it wasn't for SJG posting patches adding another TPM > chip. Moreover, now I see there are patches for cmd_tpm.c . So I see a lot of > effort invested into doing the TPM right. > > What is the actual problem with keeping this code in our codebase and patching > it then? It's all used now, problem solved, or am I missing something? >
Yes there has been quite a bit of effort on this. I hope we can keep this code, and perhaps even others way wish to help. I am looking at how to create a very simple kernel verification method based around a FIT image. > Best regards, > Marek Vasut Regards, Simon _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot