[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150127170308.GA10140@obsidianresearch.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2015 10:03:08 -0700
From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgunthorpe@...idianresearch.com>
To: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Scot Doyle <lkml14@...tdoyle.com>, peterhuewe@....de,
ashley@...leylai.com, christophe.ricard@...il.com,
jason.gunthorpe@...idianresearch.com, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, tpmdd-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
trousers-tech@...ts.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [tpmdd-devel] [PATCH] tpm: fix suspend/resume paths for TPM 2.0
On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 06:57:22PM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > > + /* 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.
What happens to the system when pnp_driver.resume() returns failure?
Should tpm ever report failure on resume to the rest of the kernel?
Shouldn't this stuff be in tpm_pm_resume common code anyhow?
Jason
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists