Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756683AbbLAUvB (ORCPT ); Tue, 1 Dec 2015 15:51:01 -0500 Received: from quartz.orcorp.ca ([184.70.90.242]:51386 "EHLO quartz.orcorp.ca" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755179AbbLAUvA (ORCPT ); Tue, 1 Dec 2015 15:51:00 -0500 Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2015 13:46:23 -0700 From: Jason Gunthorpe To: Uwe =?iso-8859-1?Q?Kleine-K=F6nig?= Cc: Jarkko Sakkinen , tpmdd-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Martin Wilck , Peter Huewe Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] tpm_tis: Use devm_ioremap_resource Message-ID: <20151201204623.GA25359@obsidianresearch.com> References: <1448996309-15220-1-git-send-email-jgunthorpe@obsidianresearch.com> <1448996309-15220-3-git-send-email-jgunthorpe@obsidianresearch.com> <20151201192240.GE5072@pengutronix.de> <20151201194419.GB16123@obsidianresearch.com> <20151201195217.GH5072@pengutronix.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <20151201195217.GH5072@pengutronix.de> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) X-Broken-Reverse-DNS: no host name found for IP address 10.0.0.160 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1407 Lines: 30 On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 08:52:17PM +0100, Uwe Kleine-K?nig wrote: > The issue I saw is: There are three(?) ways the tpm could be bound. If > one of the succeeds, the other two are expected to fail. But in this > case an error message, that the tpm failed to be bound is at least > misleading. My expectation is that the platform will never have a device that can be bound to more than one and/or the driver core will prevent it (ie if a PNP and ACPI driver claim the same ID the core should bind the ACPI device only, not bind the ACPI device then downgrade to PNP and try to bind the PNP device) This issue pre-exists this patch. All this patch is doing is forcing the tpm_tis to fail to bind instead of potentially running two drivers on the same iorange at once. The only case where this might not be true is if the user specifies force. In this case, if forcing and there is acpi/pnp tpm at the same address, then there will be a message failing the acpi/pnp bind. I feel that is OK because it does indicate the user has done something very questionable. (there is little reason to use force if acpi already has the tpm at the same address range) Jason -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/