On Saturday 18 April 2015 20:49:03 Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > On Sat, Apr 18, 2015 at 11:36:53AM +0200, Javier González wrote: > > Hi, > > A: No. > Q: Should I include quotations after my reply? > > http://daringfireball.net/2007/07/on_top > > > We have discussed and implemented an in-kernel interface for the driver. > > However, we need to agree on that interface with the kernel submodules that > > can be interested in using it (e.g., IMA, keyring). We though it was easier > > to have a framework in place before taking this space. This makes sense > > since a TEE driver will be, as for today, mostly used by user space. > > applications. > > No, please provide a "real" solution, just providing a framework that no > one uses means that I get to delete it from the kernel tree the next > release, and I doubt you want that > > Please do all of the work here, as odds are, what you need in the end > will be different from what you have proposed here. I guess an alternative would be to remove all the unused infrastructure code and only provide a user space interface for the features that op_tee requires, but no optional user interfaces or in-kernel interfaces. Arnd -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
