No worries. Just fix them and I will include to my next pull request! /Jarkko
On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 03:44:55PM -0700, Josh Zimmerman wrote: > Sorry about the mess. I'm a bit swamped today, but I'll work on > cleaning up the patch formatting & commit message and fix the > compilation problem later today or tomorrow. (It did build on my > checkout of the tpmdd branch... guess I didn't pull in some important > change.) > Josh > > > On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 3:38 PM, Jarkko Sakkinen > <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 12:21:22AM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > >> 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 > > > > I *tried* to apply them myself after sending this in order to be helpful > > but they have compilation errors: > > > > drivers/char/tpm/tpm-chip.c: In function ‘tpm_shutdown’: > > drivers/char/tpm/tpm-chip.c:162:23: error: ‘TPM_SU_CLEAR’ undeclared (first > > use in this function) > > tpm2_shutdown(chip, TPM_SU_CLEAR); > > ^~~~~~~~~~~~ > > drivers/char/tpm/tpm-chip.c:162:23: note: each undeclared identifier is > > reported only once for each function it appears in > > drivers/char/tpm/tpm-chip.c: In function ‘tpm_chip_alloc’: > > drivers/char/tpm/tpm-chip.c:214:17: error: ‘chip->dev.class’ is a pointer; > > did you mean to use ‘->’? > > chip->dev.class.shutdown = tpm_shutdown; > > > > /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
