In DSDT table, TPM _CID was SMO0768, and no _HID definition. After a
kernel upgrade from 4.19 to 5.10, TPM probe function was changed which
causes device probe fails. In order to make newer kernel to be
compatible with the older acpi definition, it would be best set default
probe function.
Signed-off-by: Liguang Zhang <[email protected]>
---
drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_spi_main.c | 12 ++++++++----
1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_spi_main.c b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_spi_main.c
index 3856f6ebcb34..da632a582621 100644
--- a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_spi_main.c
+++ b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_spi_main.c
@@ -240,10 +240,14 @@ static int tpm_tis_spi_driver_probe(struct spi_device *spi)
tpm_tis_spi_probe_func probe_func;
probe_func = of_device_get_match_data(&spi->dev);
- if (!probe_func && spi_dev_id)
- probe_func = (tpm_tis_spi_probe_func)spi_dev_id->driver_data;
- if (!probe_func)
- return -ENODEV;
+ if (!probe_func) {
+ if (spi_dev_id) {
+ probe_func = (tpm_tis_spi_probe_func)spi_dev_id->driver_data;
+ if (!probe_func)
+ return -ENODEV;
+ } else
+ probe_func = tpm_tis_spi_probe;
+ }
return probe_func(spi);
}
--
2.19.1.6.gb485710b
On Fri, May 07, 2021 at 10:52:55PM +0800, Liguang Zhang wrote:
> In DSDT table, TPM _CID was SMO0768, and no _HID definition. After a
> kernel upgrade from 4.19 to 5.10, TPM probe function was changed which
> causes device probe fails. In order to make newer kernel to be
> compatible with the older acpi definition, it would be best set default
> probe function.
>
> Signed-off-by: Liguang Zhang <[email protected]>
> ---
> drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_spi_main.c | 12 ++++++++----
> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_spi_main.c b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_spi_main.c
> index 3856f6ebcb34..da632a582621 100644
> --- a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_spi_main.c
> +++ b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_spi_main.c
> @@ -240,10 +240,14 @@ static int tpm_tis_spi_driver_probe(struct spi_device *spi)
> tpm_tis_spi_probe_func probe_func;
>
> probe_func = of_device_get_match_data(&spi->dev);
> - if (!probe_func && spi_dev_id)
> - probe_func = (tpm_tis_spi_probe_func)spi_dev_id->driver_data;
> - if (!probe_func)
> - return -ENODEV;
> + if (!probe_func) {
> + if (spi_dev_id) {
> + probe_func = (tpm_tis_spi_probe_func)spi_dev_id->driver_data;
> + if (!probe_func)
> + return -ENODEV;
Perhaps also hear fallback to tpm_tis_spi_probe?
> + } else
> + probe_func = tpm_tis_spi_probe;
> + }
>
> return probe_func(spi);
> }
> --
> 2.19.1.6.gb485710b
>
>
/Jarkko
Hi,
在 2021/5/8 10:01, Jarkko Sakkinen 写道:
> On Fri, May 07, 2021 at 10:52:55PM +0800, Liguang Zhang wrote:
>> In DSDT table, TPM _CID was SMO0768, and no _HID definition. After a
>> kernel upgrade from 4.19 to 5.10, TPM probe function was changed which
>> causes device probe fails. In order to make newer kernel to be
>> compatible with the older acpi definition, it would be best set default
>> probe function.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Liguang Zhang <[email protected]>
>> ---
>> drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_spi_main.c | 12 ++++++++----
>> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_spi_main.c b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_spi_main.c
>> index 3856f6ebcb34..da632a582621 100644
>> --- a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_spi_main.c
>> +++ b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_spi_main.c
>> @@ -240,10 +240,14 @@ static int tpm_tis_spi_driver_probe(struct spi_device *spi)
>> tpm_tis_spi_probe_func probe_func;
>>
>> probe_func = of_device_get_match_data(&spi->dev);
>> - if (!probe_func && spi_dev_id)
>> - probe_func = (tpm_tis_spi_probe_func)spi_dev_id->driver_data;
>> - if (!probe_func)
>> - return -ENODEV;
>> + if (!probe_func) {
>> + if (spi_dev_id) {
>> + probe_func = (tpm_tis_spi_probe_func)spi_dev_id->driver_data;
>> + if (!probe_func)
>> + return -ENODEV;
> Perhaps also hear fallback to tpm_tis_spi_probe?
Yes, I do not think of a good way. Do you have any suggestions?
The arm platform is kunpeng-920, detail dsdt information here:
Device (SPI0)
{
Name (_HID, "HISI0173") // _HID: Hardware ID
Name (_ADR, Zero) // _ADR: Address
Name (_UID, Zero) // _UID: Unique ID
Name (RBUF, ResourceTemplate ()
{
GpioIo (Exclusive, PullUp, 0x0000, 0x0000,
IoRestrictionNone,
"\\_SB.GPO1", 0x00, ResourceConsumer, ,
)
{ // Pin list
0x0006
}
QWordMemory (ResourceConsumer, PosDecode, MinFixed,
MaxFixed, NonCacheable, ReadWrite,
0x0000000000000000, // Granularity
0x00000002011A0000, // Range Minimum
0x00000002011AFFFF, // Range Maximum
0x0000000000000000, // Translation Offset
0x0000000000010000, // Length
,, , AddressRangeMemory, TypeStatic)
Interrupt (ResourceConsumer, Level, ActiveHigh,
Exclusive, ,, )
{
0x000001EB,
}
})
Method (_CRS, 0, NotSerialized) // _CRS: Current Resource
Settings
{
Return (RBUF) /* \_SB_.SPI0.RBUF */
}
Name (_DSD, Package (0x02) // _DSD: Device-Specific Data
{
ToUUID ("daffd814-6eba-4d8c-8a91-bc9bbf4aa301") /*
Device Properties for _DSD */,
Package (0x03)
{
Package (0x02)
{
"reg-io-width",
0x04
},
Package (0x02)
{
"num-cs",
One
},
Package (0x02)
{
"cs-gpios",
Package (0x04)
{
SPI0,
Zero,
Zero,
Zero
}
}
}
})
}
Scope (SPI0)
{
Device (TPM)
{
Name (_ADR, Zero) // _ADR: Address
Name (_CID, Package (0x01) // _CID: Compatible ID
{
"SMO0768"
})
Name (_UID, Zero) // _UID: Unique ID
Name (_DSD, Package (0x02) // _DSD: Device-Specific Data
{
ToUUID ("daffd814-6eba-4d8c-8a91-bc9bbf4aa301") /*
Device Properties for _DSD */,
Package (0x00){}
})
Method (_CRS, 0, NotSerialized) // _CRS: Current
Resource Settings
{
Name (RBUF, ResourceTemplate ()
{
SpiSerialBusV2 (0x0000, PolarityLow,
FourWireMode, 0x08,
ControllerInitiated, 0x000F4240,
ClockPolarityLow,
ClockPhaseFirst, "\\_SB.SPI0",
0x00, ResourceConsumer, , Exclusive,
)
})
Return (RBUF) /* \_SB_.SPI0.TPM_._CRS.RBUF */
}
Method (_STA, 0, NotSerialized) // _STA: Status
{
If ((TPEN == One))
{
Return (0x0F)
}
Else
{
Return (Zero)
}
}
}
}
}
Regards
Liguang
>
>> + } else
>> + probe_func = tpm_tis_spi_probe;
>> + }
>>
>> return probe_func(spi);
>> }
>> --
>> 2.19.1.6.gb485710b
>>
>>
> /Jarkko
On Sat, May 08, 2021 at 10:46:57AM +0800, 乱石 wrote:
> Hi,
>
> 在 2021/5/8 10:01, Jarkko Sakkinen 写道:
> > On Fri, May 07, 2021 at 10:52:55PM +0800, Liguang Zhang wrote:
> > > In DSDT table, TPM _CID was SMO0768, and no _HID definition. After a
> > > kernel upgrade from 4.19 to 5.10, TPM probe function was changed which
> > > causes device probe fails. In order to make newer kernel to be
> > > compatible with the older acpi definition, it would be best set default
> > > probe function.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Liguang Zhang <[email protected]>
> > > ---
> > > drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_spi_main.c | 12 ++++++++----
> > > 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_spi_main.c b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_spi_main.c
> > > index 3856f6ebcb34..da632a582621 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_spi_main.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_spi_main.c
> > > @@ -240,10 +240,14 @@ static int tpm_tis_spi_driver_probe(struct spi_device *spi)
> > > tpm_tis_spi_probe_func probe_func;
> > > probe_func = of_device_get_match_data(&spi->dev);
> > > - if (!probe_func && spi_dev_id)
> > > - probe_func = (tpm_tis_spi_probe_func)spi_dev_id->driver_data;
> > > - if (!probe_func)
> > > - return -ENODEV;
> > > + if (!probe_func) {
> > > + if (spi_dev_id) {
> > > + probe_func = (tpm_tis_spi_probe_func)spi_dev_id->driver_data;
> > > + if (!probe_func)
> > > + return -ENODEV;
> > Perhaps also hear fallback to tpm_tis_spi_probe?
>
>
> Yes, I do not think of a good way. Do you have any suggestions?
So, I just think that when you have this part:
if (!probe_func) {
if (spi_dev_id) {
probe_func = (tpm_tis_spi_probe_func)spi_dev_id->driver_data;
if (!probe_func)
return -ENODEV;
Why in here would not you also want to fallback to tpm_tis_spi_probe?
/Jarkko
在 2021/5/10 4:39, Jarkko Sakkinen 写道:
> On Sat, May 08, 2021 at 10:46:57AM +0800, 乱石 wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> 在 2021/5/8 10:01, Jarkko Sakkinen 写道:
>>> On Fri, May 07, 2021 at 10:52:55PM +0800, Liguang Zhang wrote:
>>>> In DSDT table, TPM _CID was SMO0768, and no _HID definition. After a
>>>> kernel upgrade from 4.19 to 5.10, TPM probe function was changed which
>>>> causes device probe fails. In order to make newer kernel to be
>>>> compatible with the older acpi definition, it would be best set default
>>>> probe function.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Liguang Zhang <[email protected]>
>>>> ---
>>>> drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_spi_main.c | 12 ++++++++----
>>>> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_spi_main.c b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_spi_main.c
>>>> index 3856f6ebcb34..da632a582621 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_spi_main.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_spi_main.c
>>>> @@ -240,10 +240,14 @@ static int tpm_tis_spi_driver_probe(struct spi_device *spi)
>>>> tpm_tis_spi_probe_func probe_func;
>>>> probe_func = of_device_get_match_data(&spi->dev);
>>>> - if (!probe_func && spi_dev_id)
>>>> - probe_func = (tpm_tis_spi_probe_func)spi_dev_id->driver_data;
>>>> - if (!probe_func)
>>>> - return -ENODEV;
>>>> + if (!probe_func) {
>>>> + if (spi_dev_id) {
>>>> + probe_func = (tpm_tis_spi_probe_func)spi_dev_id->driver_data;
>>>> + if (!probe_func)
>>>> + return -ENODEV;
>>> Perhaps also hear fallback to tpm_tis_spi_probe?
>>
>> Yes, I do not think of a good way. Do you have any suggestions?
> So, I just think that when you have this part:
>
>
> if (!probe_func) {
> if (spi_dev_id) {
> probe_func = (tpm_tis_spi_probe_func)spi_dev_id->driver_data;
> if (!probe_func)
> return -ENODEV;
>
> Why in here would not you also want to fallback to tpm_tis_spi_probe?
Thanks, I got it. If spi_dev_id exists, prob_func is NULL, I think it's
not reasonable , but not neccessarily correct.
In this scenario, maybe can also fallback to tpm_tis_spi_probe.
Liguang
>
> /Jarkko
在 2021/5/10 4:39, Jarkko Sakkinen 写道:
> On Sat, May 08, 2021 at 10:46:57AM +0800, 乱石 wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> 在 2021/5/8 10:01, Jarkko Sakkinen 写道:
>>> On Fri, May 07, 2021 at 10:52:55PM +0800, Liguang Zhang wrote:
>>>> In DSDT table, TPM _CID was SMO0768, and no _HID definition. After a
>>>> kernel upgrade from 4.19 to 5.10, TPM probe function was changed which
>>>> causes device probe fails. In order to make newer kernel to be
>>>> compatible with the older acpi definition, it would be best set default
>>>> probe function.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Liguang Zhang <[email protected]>
>>>> ---
>>>> drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_spi_main.c | 12 ++++++++----
>>>> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_spi_main.c b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_spi_main.c
>>>> index 3856f6ebcb34..da632a582621 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_spi_main.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_spi_main.c
>>>> @@ -240,10 +240,14 @@ static int tpm_tis_spi_driver_probe(struct spi_device *spi)
>>>> tpm_tis_spi_probe_func probe_func;
>>>> probe_func = of_device_get_match_data(&spi->dev);
>>>> - if (!probe_func && spi_dev_id)
>>>> - probe_func = (tpm_tis_spi_probe_func)spi_dev_id->driver_data;
>>>> - if (!probe_func)
>>>> - return -ENODEV;
>>>> + if (!probe_func) {
>>>> + if (spi_dev_id) {
>>>> + probe_func = (tpm_tis_spi_probe_func)spi_dev_id->driver_data;
>>>> + if (!probe_func)
>>>> + return -ENODEV;
>>> Perhaps also hear fallback to tpm_tis_spi_probe?
>>
>> Yes, I do not think of a good way. Do you have any suggestions?
> So, I just think that when you have this part:
>
>
> if (!probe_func) {
> if (spi_dev_id) {
> probe_func = (tpm_tis_spi_probe_func)spi_dev_id->driver_data;
> if (!probe_func)
> return -ENODEV;
>
> Why in here would not you also want to fallback to tpm_tis_spi_probe?
Sorry to trouble you, do you have a good way to resolve the compatible
problem caused by kernel update (4.19 -> 5.10) ?
Liguang
>
> /Jarkko
On Wed, May 12, 2021 at 09:07:56AM +0800, 乱石 wrote:
> 在 2021/5/10 4:39, Jarkko Sakkinen 写道:
> > On Sat, May 08, 2021 at 10:46:57AM +0800, 乱石 wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > 在 2021/5/8 10:01, Jarkko Sakkinen 写道:
> > > > On Fri, May 07, 2021 at 10:52:55PM +0800, Liguang Zhang wrote:
> > > > > In DSDT table, TPM _CID was SMO0768, and no _HID definition. After a
> > > > > kernel upgrade from 4.19 to 5.10, TPM probe function was changed which
> > > > > causes device probe fails. In order to make newer kernel to be
> > > > > compatible with the older acpi definition, it would be best set default
> > > > > probe function.
> > > > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Liguang Zhang <[email protected]>
> > > > > ---
> > > > > drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_spi_main.c | 12 ++++++++----
> > > > > 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> > > > >
> > > > > diff --git a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_spi_main.c b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_spi_main.c
> > > > > index 3856f6ebcb34..da632a582621 100644
> > > > > --- a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_spi_main.c
> > > > > +++ b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_spi_main.c
> > > > > @@ -240,10 +240,14 @@ static int tpm_tis_spi_driver_probe(struct spi_device *spi)
> > > > > tpm_tis_spi_probe_func probe_func;
> > > > > probe_func = of_device_get_match_data(&spi->dev);
> > > > > - if (!probe_func && spi_dev_id)
> > > > > - probe_func = (tpm_tis_spi_probe_func)spi_dev_id->driver_data;
> > > > > - if (!probe_func)
> > > > > - return -ENODEV;
> > > > > + if (!probe_func) {
> > > > > + if (spi_dev_id) {
> > > > > + probe_func = (tpm_tis_spi_probe_func)spi_dev_id->driver_data;
> > > > > + if (!probe_func)
> > > > > + return -ENODEV;
> > > > Perhaps also hear fallback to tpm_tis_spi_probe?
> > >
> > > Yes, I do not think of a good way. Do you have any suggestions?
> > So, I just think that when you have this part:
> >
> >
> > if (!probe_func) {
> > if (spi_dev_id) {
> > probe_func = (tpm_tis_spi_probe_func)spi_dev_id->driver_data;
> > if (!probe_func)
> > return -ENODEV;
> >
> > Why in here would not you also want to fallback to tpm_tis_spi_probe?
>
> Sorry to trouble you, do you have a good way to resolve the compatible
> problem caused by kernel update (4.19 -> 5.10) ?
I think I'll take this as it is.
I'll apply it to my tree and take it as part of next pr.
Reviewed-by: Jarkko Sakkinen <[email protected]>
/Jarkko