Sorry the ones on CC, previous message got messed up by the mail client.
This patch fixes https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16256
Link to original post given it wasn't submitted to LKML originally:
http://marc.info/?l=tpmdd-devel&m=127609160616162&w=2
Acked-by: Rajiv Andrade <[email protected]>
On Wed, 2010-06-09 at 15:11 +0200, Helmut Schaa wrote:
> Fix subsequent suspends by issuing tpm_continue_selftest during resume.
> Otherwise, the tpm chip seems to be not fully initialized and will reject
> the save state command during suspend, thus preventing the whole system
> to suspend.
>
> Signed-off-by: Helmut Schaa <[email protected]>
> ---
>
> Not sure if the platform resume method should be fixed in the same way.
> Plase review.
>
> Thanks,
> Helmut
>
> drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis.c | 9 ++++++++-
> 1 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis.c b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis.c
> index 24314a9..1030f84 100644
> --- a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis.c
> +++ b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis.c
> @@ -623,7 +623,14 @@ static int tpm_tis_pnp_suspend(struct pnp_dev *dev, pm_message_t msg)
>
> static int tpm_tis_pnp_resume(struct pnp_dev *dev)
> {
> - return tpm_pm_resume(&dev->dev);
> + struct tpm_chip *chip = pnp_get_drvdata(dev);
> + int ret;
> +
> + ret = tpm_pm_resume(&dev->dev);
> + if (!ret)
> + tpm_continue_selftest(chip);
> +
> + return ret;
> }
>
> static struct pnp_device_id tpm_pnp_tbl[] __devinitdata = {
On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 00:08:44 -0300
Rajiv Andrade <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-06-09 at 15:11 +0200, Helmut Schaa wrote:
> > Fix subsequent suspends by issuing tpm_continue_selftest during resume.
> > Otherwise, the tpm chip seems to be not fully initialized and will reject
> > the save state command during suspend, thus preventing the whole system
> > to suspend.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Helmut Schaa <[email protected]>
> > ---
> >
> > Not sure if the platform resume method should be fixed in the same way.
> > Plase review.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Helmut
> >
> > drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis.c | 9 ++++++++-
> > 1 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis.c b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis.c
> > index 24314a9..1030f84 100644
> > --- a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis.c
> > +++ b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis.c
> > @@ -623,7 +623,14 @@ static int tpm_tis_pnp_suspend(struct pnp_dev *dev, pm_message_t msg)
> >
> > static int tpm_tis_pnp_resume(struct pnp_dev *dev)
> > {
> > - return tpm_pm_resume(&dev->dev);
> > + struct tpm_chip *chip = pnp_get_drvdata(dev);
> > + int ret;
> > +
> > + ret = tpm_pm_resume(&dev->dev);
> > + if (!ret)
> > + tpm_continue_selftest(chip);
> > +
> > + return ret;
> > }
> >
> > static struct pnp_device_id tpm_pnp_tbl[] __devinitdata = {
>
> Sorry the ones on CC, previous message got messed up by the mail client.
>
> This patch fixes https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16256
>
> Link to original post given it wasn't submitted to LKML originally:
> http://marc.info/?l=tpmdd-devel&m=127609160616162&w=2
>
> Acked-by: Rajiv Andrade <[email protected]>
>
(top-posting repaired. Please don't do that).
This wasn't a very good way to send a patch. I edited the diff,
reconstructed the patch and then assembled a decent-looking changelog.
I also changed your acked-by to the required signed-off-by, because you
were on the patch's delivery path.
Pretty please: next time, prepare a proper mergeable patch with the
correct attributions and signoffs? Thanks.
On Jun 23, 2010, at 4:18 PM, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 00:08:44 -0300
> Rajiv Andrade <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 2010-06-09 at 15:11 +0200, Helmut Schaa wrote:
>>> Fix subsequent suspends by issuing tpm_continue_selftest during resume.
>>> Otherwise, the tpm chip seems to be not fully initialized and will reject
>>> the save state command during suspend, thus preventing the whole system
>>> to suspend.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Helmut Schaa <[email protected]>
>>> ---
>>>
>>> Not sure if the platform resume method should be fixed in the same way.
>>> Plase review.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Helmut
>>>
>>> drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis.c | 9 ++++++++-
>>> 1 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis.c b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis.c
>>> index 24314a9..1030f84 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis.c
>>> @@ -623,7 +623,14 @@ static int tpm_tis_pnp_suspend(struct pnp_dev *dev, pm_message_t msg)
>>>
>>> static int tpm_tis_pnp_resume(struct pnp_dev *dev)
>>> {
>>> - return tpm_pm_resume(&dev->dev);
>>> + struct tpm_chip *chip = pnp_get_drvdata(dev);
>>> + int ret;
>>> +
>>> + ret = tpm_pm_resume(&dev->dev);
>>> + if (!ret)
>>> + tpm_continue_selftest(chip);
>>> +
>>> + return ret;
>>> }
>>>
>>> static struct pnp_device_id tpm_pnp_tbl[] __devinitdata = {
>>
>> Sorry the ones on CC, previous message got messed up by the mail client.
>>
>> This patch fixes https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16256
>>
>> Link to original post given it wasn't submitted to LKML originally:
>> http://marc.info/?l=tpmdd-devel&m=127609160616162&w=2
>>
>> Acked-by: Rajiv Andrade <[email protected]>
>>
>
> (top-posting repaired. Please don't do that).
>
> This wasn't a very good way to send a patch. I edited the diff,
> reconstructed the patch and then assembled a decent-looking changelog.
> I also changed your acked-by to the required signed-off-by, because you
> were on the patch's delivery path.
>
> Pretty please: next time, prepare a proper mergeable patch with the
> correct attributions and signoffs? Thanks.
Sure, sorry. I was just not certain if I could just resent Helmut's patch to LKML without messing with his authorship.
Thanks,
Rajiv-
On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 16:55:54 -0300
Rajiv Andrade <[email protected]> wrote:
> > (top-posting repaired. Please don't do that).
> >
> > This wasn't a very good way to send a patch. I edited the diff,
> > reconstructed the patch and then assembled a decent-looking changelog.
> > I also changed your acked-by to the required signed-off-by, because you
> > were on the patch's delivery path.
> >
> > Pretty please: next time, prepare a proper mergeable patch with the
> > correct attributions and signoffs? Thanks.
>
> Sure, sorry. I was just not certain if I could just resent Helmut's patch to LKML without messing with his authorship.
You can. Put his "From:" line right at the top of the changelog and
everyone's patch-receiving tools will honour that. If the From: at the
top of the changelog is absent, the tools will fall back to using the
From: line in the mail headers.
Hi,
Am Mittwoch 23 Juni 2010 schrieb Andrew Morton:
> On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 16:55:54 -0300
> Rajiv Andrade <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > (top-posting repaired. Please don't do that).
> > >
> > > This wasn't a very good way to send a patch. I edited the diff,
> > > reconstructed the patch and then assembled a decent-looking changelog.
> > > I also changed your acked-by to the required signed-off-by, because you
> > > were on the patch's delivery path.
> > >
> > > Pretty please: next time, prepare a proper mergeable patch with the
> > > correct attributions and signoffs? Thanks.
> >
> > Sure, sorry. I was just not certain if I could just resent Helmut's patch to LKML without messing with his authorship.
>
> You can. Put his "From:" line right at the top of the changelog and
> everyone's patch-receiving tools will honour that. If the From: at the
> top of the changelog is absent, the tools will fall back to using the
> From: line in the mail headers.
This patch still didn't make it into mainline and it fixes a regression.
Rajiv, do you plan to resubmit the patch or did you expect it to go through
Andrew's tree?
Thanks,
Helmut
On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 14:07:51 +0200 Helmut Schaa <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Am Mittwoch 23 Juni 2010 schrieb Andrew Morton:
> > On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 16:55:54 -0300
> > Rajiv Andrade <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > > (top-posting repaired. Please don't do that).
> > > >
> > > > This wasn't a very good way to send a patch. I edited the diff,
> > > > reconstructed the patch and then assembled a decent-looking changelog.
> > > > I also changed your acked-by to the required signed-off-by, because you
> > > > were on the patch's delivery path.
> > > >
> > > > Pretty please: next time, prepare a proper mergeable patch with the
> > > > correct attributions and signoffs? Thanks.
> > >
> > > Sure, sorry. I was just not certain if I could just resent Helmut's patch to LKML without messing with his authorship.
> >
> > You can. Put his "From:" line right at the top of the changelog and
> > everyone's patch-receiving tools will honour that. If the From: at the
> > top of the changelog is absent, the tools will fall back to using the
> > From: line in the mail headers.
>
> This patch still didn't make it into mainline and it fixes a regression.
> Rajiv, do you plan to resubmit the patch or did you expect it to go through
> Andrew's tree?
The patch is presently parked in James's linux-next tree.
On Jul 23, 2010, at 9:07 AM, Helmut Schaa wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Am Mittwoch 23 Juni 2010 schrieb Andrew Morton:
>> On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 16:55:54 -0300
>> Rajiv Andrade <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>> (top-posting repaired. Please don't do that).
>>>>
>>>> This wasn't a very good way to send a patch. I edited the diff,
>>>> reconstructed the patch and then assembled a decent-looking changelog.
>>>> I also changed your acked-by to the required signed-off-by, because you
>>>> were on the patch's delivery path.
>>>>
>>>> Pretty please: next time, prepare a proper mergeable patch with the
>>>> correct attributions and signoffs? Thanks.
>>>
>>> Sure, sorry. I was just not certain if I could just resent Helmut's patch to LKML without messing with his authorship.
>>
>> You can. Put his "From:" line right at the top of the changelog and
>> everyone's patch-receiving tools will honour that. If the From: at the
>> top of the changelog is absent, the tools will fall back to using the
>> From: line in the mail headers.
>
> This patch still didn't make it into mainline and it fixes a regression.
> Rajiv, do you plan to resubmit the patch or did you expect it to go through
> Andrew's tree?
>
Hi Helmut,
I expected it to make into Andrew's tree, since his recommendations were for the next time I submit a patch that matched the circumstances of this one, also, he mentioned he had to fix the issues by hand.
Andrew, do you want me to resubmit it? If so, I'm more than ok with that too though.
Thanks,
Rajiv
Nevermind,
I've just read Andrew's previous email that it's parked in James' tree.
Thanks,
Rajiv
On Jul 29, 2010, at 7:53 AM, Rajiv Andrade wrote:
>
> On Jul 23, 2010, at 9:07 AM, Helmut Schaa wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Am Mittwoch 23 Juni 2010 schrieb Andrew Morton:
>>> On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 16:55:54 -0300
>>> Rajiv Andrade <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> (top-posting repaired. Please don't do that).
>>>>>
>>>>> This wasn't a very good way to send a patch. I edited the diff,
>>>>> reconstructed the patch and then assembled a decent-looking changelog.
>>>>> I also changed your acked-by to the required signed-off-by, because you
>>>>> were on the patch's delivery path.
>>>>>
>>>>> Pretty please: next time, prepare a proper mergeable patch with the
>>>>> correct attributions and signoffs? Thanks.
>>>>
>>>> Sure, sorry. I was just not certain if I could just resent Helmut's patch to LKML without messing with his authorship.
>>>
>>> You can. Put his "From:" line right at the top of the changelog and
>>> everyone's patch-receiving tools will honour that. If the From: at the
>>> top of the changelog is absent, the tools will fall back to using the
>>> From: line in the mail headers.
>>
>> This patch still didn't make it into mainline and it fixes a regression.
>> Rajiv, do you plan to resubmit the patch or did you expect it to go through
>> Andrew's tree?
>>
>
> Hi Helmut,
>
> I expected it to make into Andrew's tree, since his recommendations were for the next time I submit a patch that matched the circumstances of this one, also, he mentioned he had to fix the issues by hand.
>
> Andrew, do you want me to resubmit it? If so, I'm more than ok with that too though.
>
> Thanks,
> Rajiv
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> The Palm PDK Hot Apps Program offers developers who use the
> Plug-In Development Kit to bring their C/C++ apps to Palm for a share
> of $1 Million in cash or HP Products. Visit us here for more details:
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/dev2dev-palm
> _______________________________________________
> tpmdd-devel mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/tpmdd-devel