On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 10:34:52AM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > On Sat, Mar 11, 2017 at 03:02:14PM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > > Added two new callbacks to struct tpm_class_ops: > > > > - request_locality > > - relinquish_locality > > > > These are called before sending and receiving data from the TPM. We > > update also tpm_tis_core to use these callbacks. Small modification to > > request_locality() is done so that it returns -EBUSY instead of locality > > number when check_locality() fails. > > Make sense > > I think you may as well do the other two drivers, even though you > can't run them the transformation looks safe enough to me. > > > Signed-off-by: Jarkko Sakkinen <[email protected]> > > drivers/char/tpm/tpm-interface.c | 9 +++++++++ > > drivers/char/tpm/tpm_crb.c | 41 > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++- > > drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_core.c | 12 ++++-------- > > include/linux/tpm.h | 3 ++- > > 4 files changed, 55 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm-interface.c > > b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm-interface.c > > index e38c792..9c56581 100644 > > +++ b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm-interface.c > > @@ -407,6 +407,12 @@ ssize_t tpm_transmit(struct tpm_chip *chip, struct > > tpm_space *space, > > if (chip->dev.parent) > > pm_runtime_get_sync(chip->dev.parent); > > > > + if (chip->ops->request_locality) { > > + rc = chip->ops->request_locality(chip, 0); > > + if (rc) > > + goto out; > > If request_locality fails we probably shouldn't call > relinquish_locality on the unwind path.. > > I think you should also put a relinquish_locality inside tpm_remove ?
Right. I was wondering why release_locality is called inside tpm_tis_remove(). So is the idea of checking pendingRequest such that the release part is "lazy" and not like what I'm doing in tpm_crb (always relinquish). Is that done for performance reasons? Should I do the same (pr similar in tpm_crb? > > + int (*request_locality)(struct tpm_chip *chip, int loc); > > + void (*relinquish_locality)(struct tpm_chip *chip, int loc, > > bool force); > > Let us document what force is supposed to do... > > I'm not sure why we have it? > > Jason I guess since it is lazy in tpm_tis_core the force is done in tpm_tis_remove so that you always relinquish the locality even if someone is not requesting it, right? Where should this be documented, to the header? /Jarkko ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot _______________________________________________ tpmdd-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/tpmdd-devel
