Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Mon, 16 Sep 2019 23:00:30 +0300
From:   Vanya Lazeev <ivan.lazeev@gmail.com>
To:     Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>
Cc:     Peter Huewe <peterhuewe@gmx.de>, Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] tpm_crb: fix fTPM on AMD Zen+ CPUs
Message-ID: <20190916200029.GA27567@hv-1.home>
References: <20190914171743.22786-1-ivan.lazeev@gmail.com>
 <20190916055130.GA7925@linux.intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20190916055130.GA7925@linux.intel.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 08:51:30AM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 14, 2019 at 08:17:44PM +0300, ivan.lazeev@gmail.com wrote:
> > +	struct list_head acpi_resources, crb_resources;
> 
> Please do not create crb_resources. I said this already last time.

But then, if I'm not mistaken, it will be impossible to track pointers
to multiple remaped regions. In this particular case, it
doesn't matter, because both buffers are in different ACPI regions,
and using acpi_resources only to fix buffer will be enough.
However, this creates incosistency between single- and
multiple-region cases: in the latter iobase field of struct crb_priv
doesn't make any difference. Am I understanding the situation correctly?
Will such fix be ok?