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

[Thierry Reding]

On Wed, May 24, 2023 at 12:43:12PM +0000, Krishna Yarlagadda wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Krishna Yarlagadda <kyarlagadda@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2023 8:41 PM
> > To: Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@xxxxxxxxx>; Mark Brown
> > <broonie@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@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
> > 
> > 
> > > -----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?
> Jarkko, Mark,
> Can we pick this change in TPM list since SPI header changes are in.

Hey Mark, Jarkko,

any ideas on how we can best get this merged? I guess at this point it
could go through either tree since the SPI dependency has been in Linus'
tree since v6.4-rc1.

Thierry

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature