lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Mar]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH v3] tpm: do not suspend/resume if power stays on
From
Date
Hi Jarkko,

On 06/03/17 21:59, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 03, 2017 at 05:09:59PM +0100, Enric Balletbo i Serra wrote:
>> From: Sonny Rao <sonnyrao@chromium.org>
>>
>> The suspend/resume behavior of the TPM can be controlled by setting
>> "powered-while-suspended" in the DTS. This is useful for the cases
>> when hardware does not power-off the TPM.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Sonny Rao <sonnyrao@chromium.org>
>> Signed-off-by: Enric Balletbo i Serra <enric.balletbo@collabora.com>
>> ---
>> Changes since v2:
>> Jarkko Sakkinen
>> - Add a new TPM_CHIP_FLAG_ALWAYS_POWERED flag instead of using a boolean variable.
>> - Remove a trailing newline.
>> Changes since v1:
>> Jason Gunthorpe :
>> - Move the code to handle suspend/resume in the common chip code.
>>
>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/security/tpm/tpm-i2c.txt | 6 ++++++
>> drivers/char/tpm/tpm-interface.c | 3 +++
>> drivers/char/tpm/tpm.h | 1 +
>> drivers/char/tpm/tpm_of.c | 3 +++
>> 4 files changed, 13 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/security/tpm/tpm-i2c.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/security/tpm/tpm-i2c.txt
>> index 8cb638b..85c8216 100644
>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/security/tpm/tpm-i2c.txt
>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/security/tpm/tpm-i2c.txt
>> @@ -8,6 +8,12 @@ Required properties:
>> the firmware event log
>> - linux,sml-size : size of the memory allocated for the firmware event log
>>
>> +Optional properties:
>> +
>> +- powered-while-suspended: present when the TPM is left powered on between
>> + suspend and resume (makes the suspend/resume
>> + callbacks do nothing).
>> +
>> Example (for OpenPower Systems with Nuvoton TPM 2.0 on I2C)
>> ----------------------------------------------------------
>
> Hey, just noticed something. Shouldn't this be a separate commit?

During my life submitting patches I saw the both options, sometimes the maintainer asked me to join the DT patch and the driver and sometimes he asked me to do in different patches, so I think this is more a maintainer option. Maybe Rob Herring or Mark Rutland can share their preferences?

I'll do what you want I do, TBH I don't have a strong opinion about this.

> I'm also wondering whether this can be submitted through my tree
> upper maintainers.
>
> Does not change my reviewed-by for the actual code change but you
> would have to split this into a patch set if this is the case.
>
> /Jarkko
>

Cheers,
Enric

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-03-07 10:25    [W:0.079 / U:0.056 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site