Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2017 16:18:36 -0700
From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgunthorpe@obsidianresearch.com>
To: Sonny Rao <sonnyrao@chromium.org>
Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
        Enric Balletbo i Serra <enric.balletbo@collabora.com>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>, tpmdd-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [tpmdd-devel] [PATCH] tpm: do not suspend/resume if power stays
 on
Message-ID: <20170301231836.GE2820@obsidianresearch.com>
References: <20170301115116.19696-1-enric.balletbo@collabora.com>
 <20170301135429.GF28874@leverpostej>
 <20170301184333.GA12197@obsidianresearch.com>
 <CAPz6YkX=X+mZZRaiYrFGE0qyX1QC=wnXaA-PfvSozwfDM37h1w@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAPz6YkX=X+mZZRaiYrFGE0qyX1QC=wnXaA-PfvSozwfDM37h1w@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 888
Lines: 22

On Wed, Mar 01, 2017 at 02:39:09PM -0800, Sonny Rao wrote:

> > We recently added global suspend/resume callbacks to the TPM
> > core. Those call backs do not power off the TPM, they just prepare its
> > internal state to loose power to the chip. Skipping that process on
> > hardware that does not power-off the TPM makes sense to me.
> >
> > But, Sonny, perhaps this should be a global flag in tpm_chip, not a
> > per-interface-driver override?
> 
> It's a property of the board design not the chip -- maybe I'm
> misunderstanding?

I mean do not add the code to handle this to tpm_i2c_infineon.c but in
the common chip code instead.

tpm_i2c_infineon.c should only parse DT properties that are relavent
to the bus that delivers commands to the TPM, things that apply to how
a TPM chip operates should be handled in the core code because they
apply to any command transport bus.

Jason