Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757526AbbLBS1c (ORCPT ); Wed, 2 Dec 2015 13:27:32 -0500 Received: from quartz.orcorp.ca ([184.70.90.242]:34851 "EHLO quartz.orcorp.ca" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753431AbbLBS1b (ORCPT ); Wed, 2 Dec 2015 13:27:31 -0500 Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2015 11:27:27 -0700 From: Jason Gunthorpe To: Jarkko Sakkinen Cc: tpmdd-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Martin Wilck , Peter Huewe , Uwe =?iso-8859-1?Q?Kleine-K=F6nig?= Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] tpm_tis: Clean up force module parameter Message-ID: <20151202182726.GB30972@obsidianresearch.com> References: <1448996309-15220-1-git-send-email-jgunthorpe@obsidianresearch.com> <20151201213351.GC5071@intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20151201213351.GC5071@intel.com> 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: 1859 Lines: 46 On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 11:33:51PM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 11:58:26AM -0700, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > I went through the patches and didn't see anything that would shock me > enough not to apply the patches in the current if they also work when > tested *but* are these release critical for Linux v4.4? Jarkko, Can you explain how commit 399235dc6e95400a1322a9999e92073bc572f0c8 Author: Jarkko Sakkinen Date: Tue Sep 29 00:32:19 2015 +0300 tpm, tpm_tis: fix tpm_tis ACPI detection issue with TPM 2.0 Is supposed to work? I get the jist of the idea, but I'm not seeing how it can work reliably.. The idea is to pass off TPM2_START_FIFO to tpm_tis? I'm guessing that if the driver probe order is tpm_crb,tpm_tis then things work because tpm_crb will claim the device first? Otherwise tpm_tis claims these things unconditionally? If the probe order is reversed things become broken? What is the address tpm_tis should be using? I see two things, it either uses the x86 default address or it expects the ACPI to have a MEM resource. AFAIK ACPI should never rely on hard wired addresses, so I removed that code in this series. Perhaps tpm_tis should be using control_area_pa ? Will ACPI ever present a struct resource? (if yes, why isn't tpm_crb using one?) There is also something wrong with the endianness in the acpi stuff. I don't see endianness conversions in other acpi places, so I wonder if the ones in tpm_crb are correct. If they are correct then the struct needs le/be notations and there are some missing conversions. 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/