Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 3 Dec 2015 08:00:42 +0200 | From | Jarkko Sakkinen <> | Subject | Re: [tpmdd-devel] [PATCH v2 0/3] tpm_tis: Clean up force module parameter |
| |
On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 12:11:55PM -0700, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 11:27:27AM -0700, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > > > I'm guessing that if the driver probe order is tpm_crb,tpm_tis then > > things work because tpm_crb will claim the device first? Otherwise > > tpm_tis claims these things unconditionally? If the probe order is > > reversed things become broken? > > Okay, I didn't find the is_fifo before, so that make sense > > But this: > > > What is the address tpm_tis should be using? I see two things, it > > either uses the x86 default address or it expects the ACPI to have a > > MEM resource. AFAIK ACPI should never rely on hard wired addresses, so > > I removed that code in this series. Perhaps tpm_tis should be using > > control_area_pa ? Will ACPI ever present a struct resource? (if yes, > > why isn't tpm_crb using one?) > > Is then still a problem. On Martin's system the MSFT0101 device does > not have a struct resource attached to it. Does any system, or is this > just dead code? > > Should the control_area_pa be used?
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.
/Jarkko
| |