Re: [Xen-devel] reasons/requirements for some of patches/linux-2.6.16.29/*

[Stefan Berger <stefanb@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Keir Fraser <Keir.Fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote
on 10/06/2006 04:17:12 AM:

> On 6/10/06 08:51, "Jan Beulich" <jbeulich@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
> 
> >>> tpm_plugin_2.6.17.patch
> >> 
> >> IBM-requested backport of TPM changes in 2.6.17. This will
go away when we
> >> upgrade to 2.6.18.
> > 
> > Likewise here.
> 
> I don't know if Xen-specific drivers in the sparse tree depend on
that
> patch. Stefan Berger will know better than me (cc'ed).

Plain 2.6.16 gives the following function in tpm.c:

int              tpm_register_hardware(struct
device
*dev,
struct tpm_vendor_specific
*entry)

2.6.17 offers the following signature:

struct tpm_chip
*tpm_register_hardware(struct
device
*dev,
const struct tpm_vendor_specific
*entry)

I adopted this from 2.6.17 since I needed to have
access to the tpm_chip structure where I could store other driver-specific
information in. Of course all plugin drivers use this function and therefore
the tpm_plugin_2.6.17.patch exists.

  Stefan
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel