On Mon Nov 4, 2024 at 1:18 PM EET, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > I don't categorically reject adding some code to early setup. We have > some shared code EFI stub but you have to explain your changes > proeprly. Getting rejection in some early version to some approach, > and being still pissed about that years forward is not really way > to go IMHO. Still this sounds unrealistic given that this was tpm_tis only feature, and even that driver spans to total three different types of drivers: MMIO, SPI and I2C. It would be ridiculous amount of code pulled into early setup. If you still think that would make sense then you could migrate all the functionality under lib/ which would be called by both tpm_tis_core's drivers and Trenchboot. Anyway, if past me did that call, honestly, I do actually get it. It's not a counter-argument to a represented potential concurrency issue, which can cause issues with at least one TPM2 command, or like "it was caused by you because you thought it was a bad idea to accept tons of code to early setup" ;-) I can live with that concurrency issue as long as it is known decision not to support TPM2_PolicyLocality in the in-kernel use cases. Then my patches do address remaining issues and they can be picked given the sob's. If the concurrency issue is unacceptable, then I would merge slmodule to tpm_tis_core. It does solve the concurrency bug. I'm now done with this until new version or the series is applied with my patches. I think I've done enough effort to get this merged and not the contrary. BR, Jarkko
