Hi Christophe,
On 13 August 2015 at 16:52, Simon Glass wrote:
> Hi Christophe,
>
> On 13 August 2015 at 14:22, Christophe Ricard
> wrote:
>> Hi Simon,
>>
>> Thanks for the review and your comments.
>> Please see mine below:
>>
>>
>> On 13/08/2015 03:30, Simon Glass wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Christophe,
Hi Christophe,
On 13 August 2015 at 14:22, Christophe Ricard
wrote:
> Hi Simon,
>
> Thanks for the review and your comments.
> Please see mine below:
>
>
> On 13/08/2015 03:30, Simon Glass wrote:
>>
>> Hi Christophe,
>>
>> On 11 August 2015 at 15:50, christophe.ricard
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Simon,
Hi Simon,
Thanks for the review and your comments.
Please see mine below:
On 13/08/2015 03:30, Simon Glass wrote:
Hi Christophe,
On 11 August 2015 at 15:50, christophe.ricard
wrote:
Hi Simon,
I pretty much like the move to driver model for TPM.
However, i have some few remarks:
The current
Hi Christophe,
On 11 August 2015 at 15:50, christophe.ricard
wrote:
> Hi Simon,
>
> I pretty much like the move to driver model for TPM.
> However, i have some few remarks:
>
> The current i2c driver stick to Infineon TPMs and will not support any other
> vendors like ST(in my case).
> The main r
Hi Simon,
I pretty much like the move to driver model for TPM.
However, i have some few remarks:
The current i2c driver stick to Infineon TPMs and will not support any
other vendors like ST(in my case).
The main reason for this is that there is no transport protocol over I2C
specification defi
5 matches
Mail list logo