[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

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

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.

Xen-devel mailing list



Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our
servers 24x7x365 and backed by RackSpace's Fanatical Support®.