On Mon, Sep 05, 2016 at 08:44:34AM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 04, 2016 at 02:14:06PM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > On Sat, Sep 03, 2016 at 09:26:05AM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > > >
> > > > OK, how would one get the chip instance?
> >
> > Most subsystems have a get
On Mon, Sep 05, 2016 at 08:44:34AM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 04, 2016 at 02:14:06PM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > On Sat, Sep 03, 2016 at 09:26:05AM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > > >
> > > > OK, how would one get the chip instance?
> >
> > Most subsystems have a get
On Sun, Sep 04, 2016 at 02:14:06PM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 03, 2016 at 09:26:05AM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > >
> > > OK, how would one get the chip instance?
>
> Most subsystems have a get function that returns a kref'd pointer. For
> TPM all we really need today is a
On Sun, Sep 04, 2016 at 02:14:06PM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 03, 2016 at 09:26:05AM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > >
> > > OK, how would one get the chip instance?
>
> Most subsystems have a get function that returns a kref'd pointer. For
> TPM all we really need today is a
On Sat, Sep 03, 2016 at 09:26:05AM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> >
> > OK, how would one get the chip instance?
Most subsystems have a get function that returns a kref'd pointer. For
TPM all we really need today is a 'get_default_tpm_for_ns' kind of
function.
> This still doesn't explain why
On Sat, Sep 03, 2016 at 09:26:05AM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> >
> > OK, how would one get the chip instance?
Most subsystems have a get function that returns a kref'd pointer. For
TPM all we really need today is a 'get_default_tpm_for_ns' kind of
function.
> This still doesn't explain why
On Sat, Sep 03, 2016 at 09:22:21AM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 02, 2016 at 04:45:31PM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > On Sat, Sep 03, 2016 at 01:35:22AM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > > On Fri, Sep 02, 2016 at 04:11:22PM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > > > On Sat, Sep 03,
On Sat, Sep 03, 2016 at 09:22:21AM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 02, 2016 at 04:45:31PM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > On Sat, Sep 03, 2016 at 01:35:22AM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > > On Fri, Sep 02, 2016 at 04:11:22PM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > > > On Sat, Sep 03,
On Fri, Sep 02, 2016 at 04:45:31PM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 03, 2016 at 01:35:22AM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 02, 2016 at 04:11:22PM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > > On Sat, Sep 03, 2016 at 12:48:03AM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > > > The struct
On Fri, Sep 02, 2016 at 04:45:31PM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 03, 2016 at 01:35:22AM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 02, 2016 at 04:11:22PM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > > On Sat, Sep 03, 2016 at 12:48:03AM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > > > The struct
On Sat, Sep 03, 2016 at 01:35:22AM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 02, 2016 at 04:11:22PM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > On Sat, Sep 03, 2016 at 12:48:03AM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > > The struct tpm_class_ops is not used outside the TPM driver. Thus,
> > > it can be safely
On Sat, Sep 03, 2016 at 01:35:22AM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 02, 2016 at 04:11:22PM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > On Sat, Sep 03, 2016 at 12:48:03AM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > > The struct tpm_class_ops is not used outside the TPM driver. Thus,
> > > it can be safely
On Fri, Sep 02, 2016 at 04:11:22PM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 03, 2016 at 12:48:03AM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > The struct tpm_class_ops is not used outside the TPM driver. Thus,
> > it can be safely move to drivers/char/tpm/tpm.h.
>
> No, this is the wrong direction.
>
>
On Fri, Sep 02, 2016 at 04:11:22PM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 03, 2016 at 12:48:03AM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > The struct tpm_class_ops is not used outside the TPM driver. Thus,
> > it can be safely move to drivers/char/tpm/tpm.h.
>
> No, this is the wrong direction.
>
>
On Sat, Sep 03, 2016 at 12:48:03AM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> The struct tpm_class_ops is not used outside the TPM driver. Thus,
> it can be safely move to drivers/char/tpm/tpm.h.
No, this is the wrong direction.
The goal is to make things more like other subsystems, so we should be
moving
On Sat, Sep 03, 2016 at 12:48:03AM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> The struct tpm_class_ops is not used outside the TPM driver. Thus,
> it can be safely move to drivers/char/tpm/tpm.h.
No, this is the wrong direction.
The goal is to make things more like other subsystems, so we should be
moving
The struct tpm_class_ops is not used outside the TPM driver. Thus,
it can be safely move to drivers/char/tpm/tpm.h.
Signed-off-by: Jarkko Sakkinen
---
drivers/char/tpm/tpm.h | 13 +
include/linux/tpm.h| 14 --
2 files changed, 13
The struct tpm_class_ops is not used outside the TPM driver. Thus,
it can be safely move to drivers/char/tpm/tpm.h.
Signed-off-by: Jarkko Sakkinen
---
drivers/char/tpm/tpm.h | 13 +
include/linux/tpm.h| 14 --
2 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff
18 matches
Mail list logo