On Thu, 2019-07-04 at 12:48 -0500, Oshri Alkobi wrote: > Alex, Jarkko, thank you very much for your feedbacks! Please configure your email client to use plain text. > I totally agree, there are some duplications that can be common, indeed it > will require some work in tpm_tis_core. > Since I believe it is not going to happen soon, I would suggest to examine > what duplications can currently be dropped from the new driver, so the kernel > will support the PTP I2C interface in the meantime. > I will appreciate getting ideas about any tpm_tis_core logic that currently > can be used as is by the new drive. I rather wait for a solution that integrates with our mature stack for TIS (or these days FIFO) than integrate something half-baked. If you want something in, please do right things right. What you are proposing would mean maintaining duplicate stacks forever. > Since the TIS is an old specification that mostly defines FIFO for TPM1.2 I > would say the name tpm_tis_i2c does not completely reflect its goal. However > we really don't have any problem with any name that the group will agree on. > Does tpm_ptp_i2c sound better than the current name? Absolutely not going to use that name. The naming convention is what it is for other drivers that are adapt tpm_tis_core to different HW interfaces. /Jarkko
