Re: [PATCH v7 1/2] fTPM: firmware TPM running in TEE

From: Sumit Garg
Date: Fri Jun 28 2019 - 01:50:32 EST

Hi Jarkko and Sasha,

On Thu, 27 Jun 2019 at 18:47, Jarkko Sakkinen
<jarkko.sakkinen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, 2019-06-26 at 19:56 -0400, Sasha Levin wrote:
> > > You've used so much on this so shouldn't this have that somewhat new
> > > co-developed-by tag? I'm also wondering can this work at all
> >
> > Honestly, I've just been massaging this patch more than "authoring" it.
> > If you feel strongly about it feel free to add a Co-authored patch with
> > my name, but in my mind this is just Thiru's work.
> This is just my subjective view but writing code is easier than making
> it work in the mainline in 99% of cases. If this patch was doing
> something revolutional, lets say a new outstanding scheduling algorithm,
> then I would think otherwise. It is not. You without question deserve
> both credit and also the blame (if this breaks everything) :-)
> > > process-wise if the original author of the patch is also the only tester
> > > of the patch?
> >
> > There's not much we can do about this... Linaro folks have tested this
> > without the fTPM firmware, so at the very least it won't explode for
> > everyone. If for some reason non-microsoft folks see issues then we can
> > submit patches on top to fix this, we're not just throwing this at you
> > and running away.
> So why any of those Linaro folks can't do it? I can add after tested-by
> tag parentheses something explaining that context of testing. It is
> reasonable given the circumstances.

Simply because the hardware I have (Developerbox) doesn't provide
enough flash space (as per current memory map) for this fTPM driver to
be loaded as early TA along with OP-TEE binary. So I can't get any
further point than sanity probe failure check for which I think a
tested-by won't be appropriate.


> I can also give an explanation in my next PR along the lines what you
> are saying. This would definitely work for me.
> /Jarkko