Hi Jason, On 6 November 2017 at 07:57, Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Sun, Nov 05, 2017 at 01:05:06PM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > >> I asked to create a series for a reason. Now this doesn't apply because I >> don't have an ancestor in my git history. > > It would be unusual for me to put your patch into a series unless I am > also adopting it. eg what happens if there are more comments on it? > > Also, I wasn't sure what branch your patch was against since my tree > didn't have history for it either.. > > Sometimes the maintainer has to sort stuff like this out... :) > >> Please resend as series together with my patch. I can apply neither yet >> because they have zero tested-by's. > > Hopefully PrasannaKumar can test both patches. I am assuming you are talking about the following patches - using struct tpm_chip instead of chip number and this patch. I won't be able to test if struct tpm_chip usage as I don't have multiple tpm hw in one machine. In case of tpm rng changes I can test only the lifecycle of tpm rng device. Is that enough? I feel my test will be limited. Please provide your thoughts on this. Regards, PrasannaKumar
