Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754135AbbLFEPt (ORCPT ); Sat, 5 Dec 2015 23:15:49 -0500 Received: from mga02.intel.com ([134.134.136.20]:10300 "EHLO mga02.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751698AbbLFEPr (ORCPT ); Sat, 5 Dec 2015 23:15:47 -0500 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.20,388,1444719600"; d="scan'208";a="613246945" Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2015 06:15:44 +0200 From: Jarkko Sakkinen To: Jason Gunthorpe Cc: Martin Wilck , tpmdd-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Uwe =?iso-8859-1?Q?Kleine-K=F6nig?= Subject: Re: [tpmdd-devel] [PATCH v2 0/3] tpm_tis: Clean up force module parameter Message-ID: <20151206041544.GA5585@intel.com> References: <1448996309-15220-1-git-send-email-jgunthorpe@obsidianresearch.com> <20151201213351.GC5071@intel.com> <20151202182726.GB30972@obsidianresearch.com> <20151202191155.GA2832@obsidianresearch.com> <20151203060042.GB10359@intel.com> <20151203181932.GA22973@obsidianresearch.com> <20151206040226.GA4396@intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20151206040226.GA4396@intel.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 List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1814 Lines: 43 On Sun, Dec 06, 2015 at 06:02:26AM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > On Thu, Dec 03, 2015 at 11:19:32AM -0700, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 03, 2015 at 08:00:42AM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > > > > > 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. > > > > Here is the updated series: > > > > https://github.com/jgunthorpe/linux/commits/for-jarkko > > > > What does your dmesg say? > > > > It really isn't OK to hardwire an address for acpi devices, so I've > > added something like this. Just completely guessing that control_pa is > > where the BIOS is hiding the base address. Maybe it is cca->cmd_pa ? > > I'm a bit confused about the discussion because Martin replied that > tpm_tis used to get the address range before applying this series. > > And pnp_driver in the backend for TPM 1.x devices grabs the address > range from DSDT. You can completely ignore this question. I saw Martins reply with a fix for "tpm_tis: Use devm_ioremap_resource" that you should squash into that change. So it's proved that TPM ACPI device objects do not always have a memory resource. Good. I think these changes are important but there's no really reason to rush them. Maybe, since there's been a lot of commentary, it'd be better to resubmit a new revision of the series to the mailing list so that it can be peer-reviewed once again. > /Jarkko /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/