On Thu, 2020-01-23 at 13:29 +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > On Thu, 23 Jan 2020 at 13:27, Jarkko Sakkinen > <jarkko.sakkinen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, 2020-01-14 at 15:16 +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > > > When fitted, the SynQuacer platform exposes its SPI TPM via a MMIO > > > window that is backed by the SPI command sequencer in the SPI bus > > > controller. This arrangement has the limitation that only byte size > > > accesses are supported, and so we'll need to provide a separate set > > > of read and write accessors that take this into account. > > > > What is SynQuacer platform? > > > > It is an arm64 SoC manufactured by Socionext. > > > I'm also missing a resolution why tpm_tis.c is extended to handle both > > and not add tpm_tis_something.c instead. It does not follow the pattern > > we have in place (e.g. look up tpm_tis_spi.c). > > > > We could easily do that instead, if preferred. It's just that it would > duplicate a bit of code. I'm fine with that. Overally I think it is cleaner flow. /Jarkko
