On Thu, Mar 20, 2025 at 07:30:43PM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
On Thu, Mar 20, 2025 at 06:16:19PM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
On Thu, Mar 20, 2025 at 05:03:09PM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > I can do that, I slightly prefer BIT_ULL() macro, but I don't have a strong
> > opinion on my side.
> > @Borislav since you suggested it, WDYT?
>
> Either goes for me. Sorry for nitpicking that :-) The first comment
> stil applies.
Bit 8 is a lot better than 0x100.
Let's give a better example:
0x0000000008000000
or
BIT_ULL(27)
:-)
Sure, I'm fine with using BIT_ULL() :-)
Yeah, we all agree :-)
While I'm here: I'm guessing I'll route patches 1 and 4 through tip once
they're ready to go and give Jarkko an immutable branch he can base the other
two ontop.
Agreed?
Works for me.
Just a note, patch 2 adds `include/linux/svsm_vtpm.h`, that file is
basically a translation of the AMD SVSM specification into structures
and functions used to communicate with SVSM in the way it is defined by
the specification.
I realized that the file does not fall under any section of MAINTAINERS.
How do you suggest we proceed?
Should we create an SVSM section to maintain it, including the TPM
driver and future other drivers,etc.?
Or include it in other sections? Which one in this case?
I'm willing to help both as a sub-maintainer and reviewer of course, but
I would like your advice.
Thanks,
Stefano
