On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 06:19:57AM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 29, 2020 at 07:47:52PM -0400, Daniel P. Smith wrote:
> > TrenchBoot's AMD Secure Loader (LZ). The former is not well supported
> > and the latter will be getting maintenance under TB. While this is not
> > preferred, we had to weigh this versus trying to convince you and the
> > other TPM driver maintainers on a significant refactoring of the TPM
> > driver. It was elected for the reuse of a clean implementation that can
> > be replaced later if/when the TPM driver was refactored. When we
> > explained this during the RFC and it was not rejected, therefore we
> > carried it forward into this submission.
>
> What does it anyway mean when you say "RFC was not rejected"? I don't
> get the semantics of that sentence. It probably neither was ack'd,
> right? I do not really care what happened with the RFC. All I can say
> is that in the current state this totally PoC from top to bottom.
>
> > > How it is now is never going to fly.
> >
> > We would gladly work with you and the other TPM maintainers on a
> > refactoring of the TPM driver to separate core logic into standalone
> > files that both the driver and the compressed kernel can share.
>
> Yes, exactly. You have to refactor out the common parts. This is way too
> big patch to spend time on giving any more specific advice. Should be in
> way smaller chunks. For (almost) any possible, this is of unacceptable
^ " patch"
> size.
>
> I think that it'd be best first to keep the common files in
> drivers/char/tpm and include them your code with relative paths in the
> Makefile. At least up until we have clear view what are the common
> parts.
>
> You might also want to refactor drivers/char/tpm/tpm.h and include/linux
> TPM headers to move more stuff into include/linux.
>
> If you are expecting a quick upstreaming process, please do not. This
> will take considerable amount of time to get right.
/Jarkko
