RE: [Patch V10 2/3] tpm_tis-spi: Add hardware wait polling

[Krishna Yarlagadda <kyarlagadda@xxxxxxxxxx>]

> -----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?
Thanks,
KY