Hi Jarkko and Sasha, On Thu, 27 Jun 2019 at 18:47, Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, 2019-06-26 at 19:56 -0400, Sasha Levin wrote: > > > You've used so much on this so shouldn't this have that somewhat new > > > co-developed-by tag? I'm also wondering can this work at all > > > > Honestly, I've just been massaging this patch more than "authoring" it. > > If you feel strongly about it feel free to add a Co-authored patch with > > my name, but in my mind this is just Thiru's work. > > This is just my subjective view but writing code is easier than making > it work in the mainline in 99% of cases. If this patch was doing > something revolutional, lets say a new outstanding scheduling algorithm, > then I would think otherwise. It is not. You without question deserve > both credit and also the blame (if this breaks everything) :-) > > > > process-wise if the original author of the patch is also the only tester > > > of the patch? > > > > There's not much we can do about this... Linaro folks have tested this > > without the fTPM firmware, so at the very least it won't explode for > > everyone. If for some reason non-microsoft folks see issues then we can > > submit patches on top to fix this, we're not just throwing this at you > > and running away. > > So why any of those Linaro folks can't do it? I can add after tested-by > tag parentheses something explaining that context of testing. It is > reasonable given the circumstances. Simply because the hardware I have (Developerbox) doesn't provide enough flash space (as per current memory map) for this fTPM driver to be loaded as early TA along with OP-TEE binary. So I can't get any further point than sanity probe failure check for which I think a tested-by won't be appropriate. -Sumit > > I can also give an explanation in my next PR along the lines what you > are saying. This would definitely work for me. > > /Jarkko >
