Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 23 Jun 2010 12:18:50 -0700 | From | Andrew Morton <> | Subject | Re: [RFC] tpm_tis: Fix subsequent suspend failures |
| |
On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 00:08:44 -0300 Rajiv Andrade <srajiv@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-06-09 at 15:11 +0200, Helmut Schaa wrote: > > Fix subsequent suspends by issuing tpm_continue_selftest during resume. > > Otherwise, the tpm chip seems to be not fully initialized and will reject > > the save state command during suspend, thus preventing the whole system > > to suspend. > > > > Signed-off-by: Helmut Schaa <helmut.schaa@googlemail.com> > > --- > > > > Not sure if the platform resume method should be fixed in the same way. > > Plase review. > > > > Thanks, > > Helmut > > > > drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis.c | 9 ++++++++- > > 1 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis.c b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis.c > > index 24314a9..1030f84 100644 > > --- a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis.c > > +++ b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis.c > > @@ -623,7 +623,14 @@ static int tpm_tis_pnp_suspend(struct pnp_dev *dev, pm_message_t msg) > > > > static int tpm_tis_pnp_resume(struct pnp_dev *dev) > > { > > - return tpm_pm_resume(&dev->dev); > > + struct tpm_chip *chip = pnp_get_drvdata(dev); > > + int ret; > > + > > + ret = tpm_pm_resume(&dev->dev); > > + if (!ret) > > + tpm_continue_selftest(chip); > > + > > + return ret; > > } > > > > static struct pnp_device_id tpm_pnp_tbl[] __devinitdata = { > > Sorry the ones on CC, previous message got messed up by the mail client. > > This patch fixes https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16256 > > Link to original post given it wasn't submitted to LKML originally: > http://marc.info/?l=tpmdd-devel&m=127609160616162&w=2 > > Acked-by: Rajiv Andrade <srajiv@linux.vnet.ibm.com> >
(top-posting repaired. Please don't do that).
This wasn't a very good way to send a patch. I edited the diff, reconstructed the patch and then assembled a decent-looking changelog. I also changed your acked-by to the required signed-off-by, because you were on the patch's delivery path.
Pretty please: next time, prepare a proper mergeable patch with the correct attributions and signoffs? Thanks.
| |