On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 12:12:20AM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 09:51:22AM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 01:26:47AM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > > > > > Feels weird that you have to call framework functions like that in the > > > driver. You must have brilliant reason to do so and that should be very > > > well documented in the code. This is terrible... > > > > This was all discussed on the list. It the way these callbacks work, > > the higher levels in the callback stack call the lower levels, this > > allows each level the place the next level's callback properly, eg do > > things before/after as necessary. > > > > Jason > > I tried to look up for discussion from the patchwork. These had appeared > in v6. I guess I have to backtrack the discussions from my maidir > because I honestly don't understand why class shutdown would have to > call bus callback explicitly. There's nothing in the commit message > about this nor is there any comment in the code. > > This must be fairly recent development that I've missed? > > /Jarkko
Found it: "Looking at this closer, now you definately have to change the TPM patch to call through to the other shutdown methods. We can say current TPM drivers have no driver->shutdown, but we cannot be sure about the bus->shutdown, so may as well call both from tpm's class->shutdown. I would say this should be done after the tpm2_shutdown completes as lower level shutdowns could remove register access. Jason" And makes sense. This patch is a NAK for two reasons: 1. No comment explaining this. 2. Patches are broken and they are in wrong order and cover letter is missing /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
