On Tue, Jun 09, 2015 at 02:21:12PM +0000, Moore, Robert wrote: > ACPICA usually defines any "related" data structures, just for user > convenience. If you want to keep it, it's fine for me but we still probably use the internal structure for it in tpm_crb driver (as tpm_tis uses internal structure for CRB). Do other updates look fine? I'm looking into migrating to tpm_crb driver to use actbl3.h. /Jarkko > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Jarkko Sakkinen [mailto:jarkko.sakkinen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] > > Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2015 2:18 AM > > To: Moore, Robert > > Cc: Zheng, Lv; Wysocki, Rafael J; Len Brown; open list:ACPI COMPONENT > > AR...; open list:ACPI COMPONENT AR...; open list > > Subject: Re: [PATCH] acpi: update struct acpi_table_tpm2 > > > > On Mon, Jun 08, 2015 at 08:52:02PM +0000, Moore, Robert wrote: > > > It looks like there is a change to the TCPA table also. > > > > Right. I'll update that too. > > > > I strongly think that the struct acpi_tpm2_control should not be in > > actbl3.h. It is not defined in the TCG ACPI specification. It is defined > > in > > > > http://www.trustedcomputinggroup.org/resources/pc_client_platform_tpm_prof > > ile_ptp_specification > > > > FIFO control structures are internal for to the TPM subsystem and so > > should be CRB control structures (and we have already inside tpm_crb.c). > > > > The structure ended up there probably because it was combined with the > > TPM2 table in that Microsoft specification. > > > > /Jarkko -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
