On Wed, May 24, 2023 at 12:43:12PM +0000, Krishna Yarlagadda wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Krishna Yarlagadda <kyarlagadda@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2023 8:41 PM > > To: Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@xxxxxxxxx>; Mark Brown > > <broonie@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Cc: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@xxxxxxxxxx>; jsnitsel@xxxxxxxxxx; > > robh+dt@xxxxxxxxxx; peterhuewe@xxxxxx; jgg@xxxxxxxx; > > krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@xxxxxxxxxx; linux-spi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux- > > tegra@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-integrity@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux- > > kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Jonathan Hunter <jonathanh@xxxxxxxxxx>; > > Sowjanya Komatineni <skomatineni@xxxxxxxxxx>; Laxman Dewangan > > <ldewangan@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Subject: RE: [Patch V10 2/3] tpm_tis-spi: Add hardware wait polling > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@xxxxxxxxx> > > > Sent: 24 April 2023 21:02 > > > To: Mark Brown <broonie@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > Cc: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@xxxxxxxxxx>; Krishna Yarlagadda > > > <kyarlagadda@xxxxxxxxxx>; jsnitsel@xxxxxxxxxx; robh+dt@xxxxxxxxxx; > > > peterhuewe@xxxxxx; jgg@xxxxxxxx; krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@xxxxxxxxxx; > > > linux-spi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-tegra@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux- > > > integrity@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Jonathan Hunter > > > <jonathanh@xxxxxxxxxx>; Sowjanya Komatineni > > > <skomatineni@xxxxxxxxxx>; Laxman Dewangan <ldewangan@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > Subject: Re: [Patch V10 2/3] tpm_tis-spi: Add hardware wait polling > > > > > > On Mon, Apr 24, 2023 at 04:18:45PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > > > > On Mon, Apr 24, 2023 at 04:46:24PM +0200, Thierry Reding wrote: > > > > > > > > > Would it make sense for you to pick up patch 2/3 as well? As far as I > > > > > can tell there's a build dependency on patch 1/3 because of the newly > > > > > added SPI_TPM_HW_FLOW symbol. > > > > > > > > I'll include it in my pull request for spi this time round so it should > > > > end up in -rc1, my thinking was that I was happy with the SPI bits and > > > > if it was in -rc1 then the TPM bits could be handled without cross tree > > > > issues when the review was sorted (which it is now but wasn't at the > > > > time). If the SPI side doesn't make -rc1 for some reason I can pick up > > > > the TPM bit as well, and/or do a signed tag. > > > > > > Sounds good. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Thierry > > > > Mark, > > Now that SPI changes are in, can we pull this TPM change for rc2. > > Will this be picked into SPI or TPM list? > Jarkko, Mark, > Can we pick this change in TPM list since SPI header changes are in. Hey Mark, Jarkko, any ideas on how we can best get this merged? I guess at this point it could go through either tree since the SPI dependency has been in Linus' tree since v6.4-rc1. Thierry
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
