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

[Jarkko Sakkinen]

On Sat, 2019-06-29 at 11:01 -0400, Sasha Levin wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 02:31:35AM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > On Tue, 2019-06-25 at 16:13 -0400, Sasha Levin wrote:
> > > +static const uuid_t ftpm_ta_uuid =
> > > +	UUID_INIT(0xBC50D971, 0xD4C9, 0x42C4,
> > > +		  0x82, 0xCB, 0x34, 0x3F, 0xB7, 0xF3, 0x78, 0x96);
> > > +
> > > +/**
> > > + * ftpm_tee_tpm_op_recv - retrieve fTPM response.
> > > + *
> > 
> > Should not have an empty line here.
> > 
> > > + * @chip: the tpm_chip description as specified in driver/char/tpm/tpm.h.
> > > + * @buf: the buffer to store data.
> > > + * @count: the number of bytes to read.
> 
> Jarkko, w.r.t your comment above, there is an empty line between the
> function name and variables in drivers/char/tpm, and in particular
> tpm_crb.c which you authored and I used as reference. Do you want us to
> diverge here?

There is divergence and that was the first thing I've contributed to
the TPM driver. I use this as the reference for formatting function
descriptions these days:

https://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/kernel-doc-nano-HOWTO.txt

According to that the legit way to format would be:

* ftpm_tee_tpm_op_recv() - retrieve fTPM response.
* @chip:	the tpm_chip description as specified in driver/char/tpm/tpm.h.
* @buf:		the buffer to store data.
* @count:	the number of bytes to read.

Since it is both a callback to an interface defined elsewhere
and a static function and it does not document anything useful,
I would just remove this comment. I'd do it for all callbacks
that are part of tpm_call_ops.

/Jarkko