On Tue, 20 May 2025 at 22:02, Jarkko Sakkinen <jar...@kernel.org> wrote: > On Tue, May 20, 2025 at 06:06:50PM +0200, Stefano Garzarella wrote: > > On Thu, 15 May 2025 at 03:45, Jarkko Sakkinen <jar...@kernel.org> wrote: > > > On Wed, May 14, 2025 at 03:46:30PM +0200, Stefano Garzarella wrote: > > > > From: Stefano Garzarella <sgarz...@redhat.com> > > > > > > > > This driver does not support interrupts, and receiving the response is > > > > synchronous with sending the command. > > > > > > > > Enable synchronous send() with TPM_CHIP_FLAG_SYNC, which implies that > > > > ->send() already fills the provided buffer with a response, and ->recv() > > > > is not implemented. > > > > > > > > Keep using the same pre-allocated buffer to avoid having to allocate > > > > it for each command. We need the buffer to have the header required by > > > > the SVSM protocol and the command contiguous in memory. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Stefano Garzarella <sgarz...@redhat.com> > > > > --- > > > > v5: > > > > - changed order and parameter names to match tpm_try_transmit() [Jarkko] > > > > v4: > > > > - reworked commit description [Jarkko] > > > > --- > > > > drivers/char/tpm/tpm_svsm.c | 27 +++++++++++---------------- > > > > 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-) > > > >
[...] > > > > > > I can pick this for 6.16. > > > > Great, thanks! > > Can you rebase this on top of my next branch and send one more version > of the series (fake ancestor crap)? I tried, but the last patch (this one) is based on the series merged on the tip tree, where I introduced tpm_svsm. I can see that series in linux-next merged with commit 16a56ee59ab8ee05e67de35bbb5782ef9cfb4f07, but I can't see it in your next tree [1]. How do we proceed in such cases? Just to be sure, did I use the right tree? Thanks, Stefano [1] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/jarkko/linux-tpmdd.git/log/?h=next
