[PATCH v2 1/3] tpm: of: Move of-tree specific code from tpm driver into of driver

Stefan Berger stefanb at linux.ibm.com
Wed Jun 29 07:16:37 PDT 2022



On 6/28/22 22:45, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 28, 2022 at 09:29:48AM -0400, Stefan Berger wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 6/27/22 18:43, Rob Herring wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jun 16, 2022 at 11:41:28AM -0400, Stefan Berger wrote:
>>>> Simplify tpm_read_log_of() by moving Openfirmware-specific code into
>>>> the Openfirmware driver to make the code reusable. Call the new
>>>
>>> There is no such 'Openfirmware driver'.
>>>
>>>> of_tpm_get_sml_parameters() function from the TPM Openfirmware driver.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Stefan Berger <stefanb at linux.ibm.com>
>>>> Cc: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko at kernel.org>
>>>> Cc: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg at ziepe.ca>
>>>> Cc: Rob Herring <robh+dt at kernel.org>
>>>> Cc: Frank Rowand <frowand.list at gmail.com>
>>>> ---
>>>>    drivers/char/tpm/eventlog/of.c | 31 +++++--------------------------
>>>>    drivers/of/Makefile            |  2 +-
>>>>    drivers/of/device_node.c       | 27 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>
>>> Humm, definitely the wrong direction. Generally, code for specific
>>> bindings does not go in drivers/of/. There used to be some, but we've
>>> moved it to the appropriate subsystems. kexec was an exception to not
>>> have 2 copies of the same code in arch/.
>>
>> The function I am moving here is called by the TPM subsystem and also now by
>> of/kexec.c. The latter is compiled under the following conditions:
>>
>> ifdef CONFIG_KEXEC_FILE
>> ifdef CONFIG_OF_FLATTREE
>> obj-y	+= kexec.o
>> endif
>> endif
>>
>> The code that current calls it is compiled under the following conditions:
>>
>> tpm-$(CONFIG_OF) += eventlog/of.o
>>
>> To make it available to both I could keep it in the TPM subsystem like this:
>>
>> obj-$(CONFIG_OF) = tpm_of.o
>>
>>
>> Jarrko, if you read this, any comment?
>>
>>
>>     Stefan
> 
> Why can't you convert of_tpm_get_sml_parameters() to inline function?

I can do that and put it into include/linux/tpm.h. The only concern 
would have been the size of the function.

Thanks,
    Stefan

> 
> BR, Jarkko



More information about the kexec mailing list