On Sun, Dec 18, 2011 at 4:35 AM, Wolfgang Denk wd@denx.de wrote:
Dear Che-Liang Chiou,
In message 1323852504-19954-2-git-send-email-clchiou@chromium.org you wrote:
The new name is more aligned with Linux kernel's naming of TPM driver.
Signed-off-by: Peter Huewe peter.huewe@infineon.com Signed-off-by: Che-Liang Chiou clchiou@chromium.org Acked-by: Mike Frysinger vapier@gentoo.org
Changes in v1:
- Update s-o-b Peter Huewe's email address
Makefile | 2 +- README | 5 ++++- drivers/tpm/Makefile | 2 +- drivers/tpm/{generic_lpc_tpm.c => tpm_tis_lpc.c} | 0 4 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) rename drivers/tpm/{generic_lpc_tpm.c => tpm_tis_lpc.c} (100%)
Does such a change actually make sense?
Should we not rather remove all this dead code again?
Until today there are no users for this code in mainline, and no patches have been submitted that intend to use it.
Chrome/Chromium OS uses TPM for its secure boot. So I would say it is quite a lot of usage on the critical path of booting.
The code that uses TPM did not send to the mainline because the mainline did not have a TPM driver until very recently.
And, I am still figuring out how to submit the TPM user code. I guess it would be better to organize it in a command-line toolkit so that it can be interleaved in between other commands. What do you think?
I think we should scrap this in the next release.
Best regards,
Wolfgang Denk
-- DENX Software Engineering GmbH, MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: wd@denx.de Drawing on my fine command of language, I said nothing.