> On 3/6/18, 3:14 AM, "Jarkko Sakkinen" <jarkko.sakki...@linux.intel.com> 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.
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.