On Tue, 2015-01-27 at 16:52 +0000, Scot Doyle wrote: > On Tue, 27 Jan 2015, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > > Fixed suspend/resume paths for TPM 2.0 and consolidated all the > > associated code to the tpm_pm_suspend() and tpm_pm_resume() > > functions. Resume path should be handled by the firmware, i.e. > > Startup(CLEAR) for hibernate and Startup(STATE) for suspend. > > > > There might be some non-PC embedded devices in the future where > > Startup() is not the handled by the FW but fixing the code for > > those IMHO should be postponed until there is hardware available > > to test the fixes although extra Startup in the driver code is > > essentially a NOP. > > > > Reported-by: Peter Hüwe <[email protected]> > > Signed-off-by: Jarkko Sakkinen <[email protected]> > > --- > > ... > > > --- a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis.c > > +++ b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis.c > > @@ -865,25 +865,23 @@ static void tpm_tis_reenable_interrupts(struct > > tpm_chip *chip) > > static int tpm_tis_resume(struct device *dev) > > { > > ... > > > + /* TPM 1.2 requires self-test on resume. */ > > + if (!(chip->flags & TPM_CHIP_FLAG_TPM2)) { > > + ret = tpm_do_selftest(chip); > > + if (ret < 0) > > + return ret; > > Just to note, the return value from tpm_do_selftest() on TPM 1.2 chips was > previously ignored. Mine does return 0.
Right. I can update the patch to ignore return value if the majority wants that. /Jarkko -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
