On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 09:25:36PM -0400, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 03:20:38PM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 05:13:04PM -0400, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > > > > Other DT platforms like ARM will use the bindings defined in > > > > Documentation/DeviceTree. > > > > > > So how do I know that this the right way to specify the attibutes for a > > > TPM device and all vendors would like to have the attributes like this? > > > > If you accept the patch it becomes the right way for DT. > > OK, thanks for educating me with this! My knowledge of DT is thin. I wasn't > aware that things where so unstandardized. > > I'll take that point of view for the next version of the patch set and > just try to make sense whether the attributes make sense to me.
I asked my employer to order me a Raspberry PI 3 in order to have a device that utilizes a device tree instead of ACPI (and also to have something to test SPI and I2C connected TPMs). I'm looking forward to use that to test this patch set. /Jarkko ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ tpmdd-devel mailing list tpmdd-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/tpmdd-devel
