Re: [PATCH 2/2] tpm: use SM3 instead of SM3_256

[Jarkko Sakkinen]

On Sat, 2021-10-09 at 21:08 +0800, Tianjia Zhang wrote:
> According to https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-oscca-cfrg-sm3-01.html,
> SM3 always produces a 256-bit hash value and there are no plans for
> other length development, so there is no ambiguity in the name of sm3.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Tianjia Zhang <tianjia.zhang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

This is not enough to make any changes because the commit message
does not describe what goes wrong if we keep it as it was.

/Jarkko