On 26 October 2017 at 00:41, Jarkko Sakkinen
[off-list ref] wrote:

On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 08:21:16PM +0530, PrasannaKumar Muralidharan wrote:

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

2. Moving struct tpm_rng to the TPM client is architecturally
   uacceptable.

As there was no response to the patch there is no way to know whether
it is acceptable or not.

I like the idea of removing the tpm rng driver as discussed in other
emails in this thread.

Thank you.

No, thank you.

I didn't first understand the big idea and only looked at the code
change per se. I apologize for that.

No need for that. I missed mentioning the reason for the patch and it
is not obvious from code change. Its my fault.

The problem that you went to solve was real and it led to a properly
implemented solution. You were not late from the party. Jason's code
change is derivative work of your code change. That's why his code
change has also your signed-off-by.

Thanks for doing awesome work :-)

Its really nice to hear such words :-) :-D.

/Jarkko

Thanks and regards,
PrasannaKumar