> On 3/6/18, 3:14 AM, "Jarkko Sakkinen" <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Mon, 2018-03-05 at 19:28 +0000, Sahil Rihan wrote: > > Agree on keeping the warning. > > > > I'm guessing you want to return -ENODEV from tpm_bios_log_setup. Doing it > > from > > tpm_read_log_acpi will just fall through to calling tpm_read_log_of, which I > > think will end up returning -EIO again. > > > > In terms of semantics I'm not sure if -ENODEV is the right return code if > > the > > BIOS event log is absent. I guess you can claim it's some sort of "device". > > I > > don’t have a strong opinion here. > > > > Sahil > > You are absolutely right. Printing warning and returning zero would be > the right measure to take. > > One more cosmetic detail. Should the log level be info or warn? I mean > as far as I'm concerned everything is in a legit state. > > /Jarkko Yeah, I tend to agree. I think INFO should be fine.
My reasoning is as follows: if the TPM is disabled, you shouldn't really be checking/using the BIOS event log measurements anyway. Sahil
