Hi Christophe, On 11 August 2015 at 15:47, christophe.ricard <christophe.ric...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Simon, > > Locality concept are valid almost on any chip assuming if no locality are > supported the default one is locality 0. > I would leave this change open for discussion. > > However, as per patch 06 & 07, i would keep req_complete_mask, > req_complete_val, req_canceled, timeout_a, timeout_b, timeout_c, timeout_d > in tpm_vendor_specific structure as this is chip specific. > > I really think tpm_vendor_specific is usefull for managing different kind of > TPM "the same way"/following standards.
That code belongs in the uclass I think. If there really are generic settings that are needed for all TPMs then it should sit there. We don't want to have an additional layer of stuff that doesn't relate to driver model. I'll refrain from commenting further until we can work out what the TPM uclass should look like. > Best Regards > Christophe > [snip] Regards, Simon _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
