Re: [PATCH v7 1/2] fTPM: firmware TPM running in TEE

[Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>]

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.

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

/Jarkko