On Wed, Mar 05, 2025 at 03:02:29PM -0400, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > On Wed, Mar 05, 2025 at 10:04:25AM +0100, Stefano Garzarella wrote: > > Jason suggested the send_recv() ops [2], which I liked, but if you prefer to > > avoid that, I can restore what we did in v1 and replace the > > TPM_CHIP_FLAG_IRQ hack with your point 2 (or use TPM_CHIP_FLAG_IRQ if you > > think it is fine). > > I think it is a pretty notable simplification for the driver as it > does not need to implement send, status, req_canceled and more ops. > > Given the small LOC on the core side I'd call that simplification a > win.. I'm sorry to disagree with you on this but adding a callback for one leaf driver is not what I would call "a win" :-) I mean, it's either a minor twist in 1. "the framework code" which affects in a way all other leaf drivers. At bare minimum it adds a tiny bit of complexity to the callback interface and a tiny bit of accumulated maintenance cost. 2. in the leaf driver So I'd really would want to keep that tiny bit of extra complexity localized. > > Jason BR, Jarkko
