Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 1 Jul 2009 14:13:39 +0900 | Subject | Re: [tpmdd-devel] TPM drivers support and Linux Integrity Module for 2.6.30 | From | dds (☕) <> |
| |
Hi Andy, what do your patches do?
On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 9:40 AM, Andy Isaacson<adi@hexapodia.org> wrote: > On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 01:02:27PM -0300, Rajiv Andrade wrote: >> Yep, sorry. Two options: >> >> 1- Inside that check, if got an error when in that particular >> tpm_getcap() stacked call, consider that it might be this iTPM, and >> bypass it just to get the value from the chip (would happen only once) - >> Would work, but it's odd. >> >> 2- Forget manufacturer_id and base the decision on the PNP_ID as david >> suggested. I previously considered it but since it would end up in >> modifying tpm_tis_init() prototype (struct device * to struct pnp_dev *) >> and then wouldn't work when loading as a module with force option on, so >> I moved to the manufacturer_id approach. >> >> I'll get back to #2 meanwhile and post the patch, seems not hard to >> accomplish though.. > > I've got a set of patches that seem to resolve my iTPM woes. I've > mostly tested on T400 but I also tried X200. > > I'll send the patches as a separate thread (unfortunately I can't get > git-send-email 1.6.3.1 to set a in-reply-to header on 0/5 without also > breaking threading on x/5.) > > -andy > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > _______________________________________________ > tpmdd-devel mailing list > tpmdd-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/tpmdd-devel > -- 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/
| |