On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 09:40:08AM -0800, James Bottomley wrote: > On Fri, 2017-01-13 at 10:25 -0700, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 10:56:28PM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > > > > > > dev_t tpm_devt; > > > > > > But they should have different major device numbers. > > > > major/minors don't really matter these days since they are dynamic > > Right, although we have this weird piece of code: > > > if (chip->dev_num == 0) > chip->dev.devt = MKDEV(MISC_MAJOR, TPM_MINOR); > else > chip->dev.devt = MKDEV(MAJOR(tpm_devt), chip->dev_num); > > So the first TPM device gets the MISC_MAJOR with TPM_MINOR and the rest > get the dynamic major/minor. It means when you do an ls on a complex > system you get something like: > > crw------- 1 root root 10, 224 Jan 13 06:21 /dev/tpm0 > crw------- 1 root root 246, 1 Jan 13 09:38 /dev/tpm1 > crw-rw-rw- 1 root root 246, 65536 Jan 13 06:21 /dev/tpms0 > crw-rw-rw- 1 root root 246, 65537 Jan 13 09:38 /dev/tpms1 > > Perhaps it's time just to junk the reserved misc minor?
+1 And Jason is correct about major numbers. I still am puzzled whether these should share the device class and devt with raw /dev/tpm0. /Jarkko ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Developer Access Program for Intel Xeon Phi Processors Access to Intel Xeon Phi processor-based developer platforms. With one year of Intel Parallel Studio XE. Training and support from Colfax. Order your platform today. http://sdm.link/xeonphi _______________________________________________ tpmdd-devel mailing list tpmdd-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/tpmdd-devel
