Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 08:00:42 +0200
From: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>
To: Jason Gunthorpe <jgunthorpe@obsidianresearch.com>
Cc: Martin Wilck <Martin.Wilck@ts.fujitsu.com>,
        tpmdd-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Uwe =?iso-8859-1?Q?Kleine-K=F6nig?= 
	<u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de>
Subject: Re: [tpmdd-devel] [PATCH v2 0/3] tpm_tis: Clean up force module
 parameter
Message-ID: <20151203060042.GB10359@intel.com>
References: <1448996309-15220-1-git-send-email-jgunthorpe@obsidianresearch.com>
 <20151201213351.GC5071@intel.com>
 <20151202182726.GB30972@obsidianresearch.com>
 <20151202191155.GA2832@obsidianresearch.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20151202191155.GA2832@obsidianresearch.com>
Organization: Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - Westendinkatu 7, 02160 Espoo
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1558
Lines: 36

On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 12:11:55PM -0700, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 11:27:27AM -0700, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> 
> > 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?
> 
> Okay, I didn't find the is_fifo before, so that make sense
> 
> But this:
> 
> > 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?)
> 
> Is then still a problem. On Martin's system the MSFT0101 device does
> not have a struct resource attached to it. Does any system, or is this
> just dead code?
> 
> Should the control_area_pa be used?

I guess it'd be more realiable. In my NUC the current fix works and the
people who tested it. If you supply me a fix that changes it to use that
I can test it and this will give also coverage to the people who tested
my original fix.

/Jarkko
--
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/