[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20151202081423.GB3458@intel.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2015 10:14:23 +0200
From: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>
To: Peter Huewe <peterhuewe@....de>
Cc: Jason Gunthorpe <jgunthorpe@...idianresearch.com>,
tpmdd-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Martin Wilck <Martin.Wilck@...fujitsu.com>,
Uwe Kleine-König
<u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] tpm_tis: Clean up force module parameter
On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 05:15:14PM -0800, Peter Huewe wrote:
>
>
> Am 1. Dezember 2015 14:22:23 PST, schrieb Jason Gunthorpe <jgunthorpe@...idianresearch.com>:
> >On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 11:33:51PM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> >
> >> I went through the patches and didn't see anything that would shock
> >me
> >> enough not to apply the patches in the current if they also work when
> >> tested *but* are these release critical for Linux v4.4?
> >>
> >> I got a bit confused about the discussion that was going on about
> >"where
> >> to fix the probe" crash whether or not both it should be fixed in
> >both
> >> places.
> >
> >I'm also confused by that..
> >
> >It sounds like force=1 is broken in 4.4 right now - do we care? Should
> >we fix this by using Martin's patch?
>
> I'm not 100% sure if force=1 is broken in 4.3 as well, as I oops when
> I have my tpm_crb loaded and then call modprobe tpm_tis force=1
> Peter
It'd have to be a different regression because v4.3 does not contain the
change that breaks this in v4.4. You had a NUC with discrete TPM module,
am I remembering right?
/Jarkko
--
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