Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
IronPort-SDR: BBFZnbB5vBg1oliEtwKNsC01vHmy1P8e7BXT0FwAA+t1Xn6I34tw83bZVbyZ0dJK9f4LlUjYsf
 n2kZx+EMTwMw==
IronPort-SDR: 9udcIeQ/AhDiQtSp6pKpzPBRgYHEH9Bg1XRnHRe1czU/QLTfHe4bsebxkhmxjEdol1AMF07O9l
 ifiG6TUrVHNg==
Date:   Thu, 18 Jun 2020 02:37:55 +0300
From:   Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>
To:     Jens Wiklander <jens.wiklander@linaro.org>
Cc:     Maxim Uvarov <maxim.uvarov@linaro.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "tee-dev @ lists . linaro . org" <tee-dev@lists.linaro.org>,
        peterhuewe@gmx.de, Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@linaro.org>,
        Sumit Garg <sumit.garg@linaro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv8 0/3] optee: register drivers on optee bus
Message-ID: <20200617233755.GI62794@linux.intel.com>
References: <20200604175851.758-1-maxim.uvarov@linaro.org>
 <CAD8XO3YTz=xN2k5h8HsrYsLUgmC6dD57XbBj63e+3_xFF1H0rw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20200616082907.GA2305431@jade>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200616082907.GA2305431@jade>
Organization: Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - Westendinkatu 7, 02160 Espoo
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 10:29:07AM +0200, Jens Wiklander wrote:
> Hi Maxim and Jarkko,
> 
> On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 05:32:40PM +0300, Maxim Uvarov wrote:
> > ping.
> > Patchset was reviewed and all comments are codeverd. Optee-os patches
> > were merged. These kernel patches look like they are hanging
> > somewhere...
> 
> I'm almost OK with this patchset, except that
> Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-bus-optee-devices needs to be updated
> for the new kernel version and TEE mailing list which we're changing right
> now.
> 
> The last patch touches files I'm not maintainer of. That patch depends
> on the previous patches so it makes sense to keep them together.  If a
> TPM device driver maintainer would ack that patch I can take it via my
> tree. Or we can do it the other way around (with a v9 patchset),
> whichever is preferred.
> 
> Cheers,
> Jens

Probably easier if you pick all three and I ack the one touching TPM.

/Jarkko