Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20190625201341.15865-1-sashal@kernel.org> <20190625201341.15865-2-sashal@kernel.org>
 <673dd30d03e8ed9825bb46ef21b2efef015f6f2a.camel@linux.intel.com>
 <20190626235653.GL7898@sasha-vm> <b688e845ccbe011c54b10043fbc3c0de8f0befc2.camel@linux.intel.com>
In-Reply-To: <b688e845ccbe011c54b10043fbc3c0de8f0befc2.camel@linux.intel.com>
From:   Sumit Garg <sumit.garg@linaro.org>
Date:   Fri, 28 Jun 2019 11:20:16 +0530
Message-ID: <CAFA6WYM=YFec7rx6QSWtaZYeY8LrcjQ3bbMMtF0r6jbBaHX+Bw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 1/2] fTPM: firmware TPM running in TEE
To:     Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>,
        Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>
Cc:     peterhuewe@gmx.de, jgg@ziepe.ca, corbet@lwn.net,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org,
        Microsoft Linux Kernel List <linux-kernel@microsoft.com>,
        Thirupathaiah Annapureddy <thiruan@microsoft.com>,
        "Bryan Kelly (CSI)" <bryankel@microsoft.com>,
        tee-dev@lists.linaro.org,
        Ilias Apalodimas <ilias.apalodimas@linaro.org>,
        rdunlap@infradead.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Hi Jarkko and Sasha,

On Thu, 27 Jun 2019 at 18:47, Jarkko Sakkinen
<jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 2019-06-26 at 19:56 -0400, Sasha Levin wrote:
> > > You've used so much on this so shouldn't this have that somewhat new
> > > co-developed-by tag? I'm also wondering can this work at all
> >
> > Honestly, I've just been massaging this patch more than "authoring" it.
> > If you feel strongly about it feel free to add a Co-authored patch with
> > my name, but in my mind this is just Thiru's work.
>
> This is just my subjective view but writing code is easier than making
> it work in the mainline in 99% of cases. If this patch was doing
> something revolutional, lets say a new outstanding scheduling algorithm,
> then I would think otherwise. It is not. You without question deserve
> both credit and also the blame (if this breaks everything) :-)
>
> > > process-wise if the original author of the patch is also the only tester
> > > of the patch?
> >
> > There's not much we can do about this... Linaro folks have tested this
> > without the fTPM firmware, so at the very least it won't explode for
> > everyone. If for some reason non-microsoft folks see issues then we can
> > submit patches on top to fix this, we're not just throwing this at you
> > and running away.
>
> So why any of those Linaro folks can't do it? I can add after tested-by
> tag parentheses something explaining that context of testing. It is
> reasonable given the circumstances.

Simply because the hardware I have (Developerbox) doesn't provide
enough flash space (as per current memory map) for this fTPM driver to
be loaded as early TA along with OP-TEE binary. So I can't get any
further point than sanity probe failure check for which I think a
tested-by won't be appropriate.

-Sumit

>
> I can also give an explanation in my next PR along the lines what you
> are saying. This would definitely work for me.
>
> /Jarkko
>