From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ard Biesheuvel Subject: Re: [PATCH 8/8] efi/capsule: Add support for Quark security header Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2017 14:46:36 +0100 Message-ID: References: <20170405092317.27921-1-ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org> <20170405092317.27921-9-ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org> <20170418124853.GH24360@codeblueprint.co.uk> <4daca591-8937-8256-d7f5-a1075ad7714a@siemens.com> <20170418134426.GK24360@codeblueprint.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20170418134426.GK24360-mF/unelCI9GS6iBeEJttW/XRex20P6io@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-efi-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Matt Fleming Cc: Jan Kiszka , Andy Shevchenko , "linux-efi-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org" , Bryan O'Donoghue , Kweh Hock Leong , Borislav Petkov , Sascha Weisenberger List-Id: linux-efi@vger.kernel.org On 18 April 2017 at 14:44, Matt Fleming wrote: > On Tue, 18 Apr, at 02:59:43PM, Jan Kiszka wrote: >> >> I've implemented this, but for the old design, and Ard took over then. >> So it never made it to the list. >> >> Whatever layout of these bits is preferred, it can probably be done. I >> just need an indication that there is (likely) a consensus. > > Post what you already have on top of Ard's series and we'll review it. For the record, other than the change Matt suggested (to take the Quirk handling out of the normal flow), I don't think there is a need to add a lot of parametrization just to implement this single quirk. IMO it can wait for the next one.