Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 1 Dec 2015 12:51:14 -0700 | From | Jason Gunthorpe <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] tpm_tis: Clean up the force=1 module parameter |
| |
On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 08:33:58PM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > Hello, > > On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 11:58:29AM -0700, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > > The TPM core has long assumed that every device has a driver attached, > > however commit b8b2c7d845d5 ("base/platform: assert that dev_pm_domain > > callbacks are called unconditionally") breaks that assumption. > > you asked for an alternative wording here. What about: > > The TPM core has long assumed that every device has a driver > attached, which is not valid.
But it is valid, it is an invariant of the tpm core that a driver be attached, and prior to 'b8b that has been satisfied.
> This was noticed with commit > b8b2c7d845d5 ("base/platform: assert that dev_pm_domain > callbacks are called unconditionally") which made probing of the > tpm_tis device fail by mistake and resulted in an oops later on.
The probe didn't fail, the 'b8b causes a NULL probe function to result in no driver being attached.
How about:
The TPM has for a long time required that every device it uses has an attached driver. In the force case the tpm_tis driver met this via platform_register_simple and a NULL probe function for the driver. However, commit b8b2c7d845d5 ("base/platform: assert that dev_pm_domain callbacks are called unconditionally") causes NULL probe functions to no longer bind a driver.
Did we ever reach a conclusion if Martin's patch should go ahead?
Jason
| |