Messages in this thread | | | From | Krishna Yarlagadda <> | Subject | RE: [Patch V10 2/3] tpm_tis-spi: Add hardware wait polling | Date | Wed, 10 May 2023 15:10:55 +0000 |
| |
> -----Original Message----- > From: Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail.com> > Sent: 24 April 2023 21:02 > To: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> > Cc: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@kernel.org>; Krishna Yarlagadda > <kyarlagadda@nvidia.com>; jsnitsel@redhat.com; robh+dt@kernel.org; > peterhuewe@gmx.de; jgg@ziepe.ca; krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org; > linux-spi@vger.kernel.org; linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org; linux- > integrity@vger.kernel.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; Jonathan Hunter > <jonathanh@nvidia.com>; Sowjanya Komatineni > <skomatineni@nvidia.com>; Laxman Dewangan <ldewangan@nvidia.com> > 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
| |