[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20151203170041.GA32175@obsidianresearch.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 10:00:41 -0700
From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgunthorpe@...idianresearch.com>
To: "Wilck, Martin" <martin.wilck@...fujitsu.com>
Cc: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>,
"tpmdd-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net"
<tpmdd-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Uwe Kleine-K??nig <u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>
Subject: Re: [tpmdd-devel] [PATCH v2 0/3] tpm_tis: Clean up force module
parameter
On Thu, Dec 03, 2015 at 09:30:30AM +0100, Wilck, Martin wrote:
> On Mi, 2015-12-02 at 12:11 -0700, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
>
> > > What is the address tpm_tis should be using? I see two things, it
> > > either uses the x86 default address or it expects the ACPI to have a
> > > MEM resource. AFAIK ACPI should never rely on hard wired addresses, so
> > > I removed that code in this series. Perhaps tpm_tis should be using
> > > control_area_pa ? Will ACPI ever present a struct resource? (if yes,
> > > why isn't tpm_crb using one?)
> >
> > Is then still a problem. On Martin's system the MSFT0101 device does
> > not have a struct resource attached to it. Does any system, or is this
> > just dead code?
>
> ACPI defines a mem resource corresponding to the standard TIS memory
> area on my system, and it used to be detected fine with Jarkko's patch.
> Somehow your latest changes broke it, not sure why.
Are you certain? Based on what you sent me, that output is only
possible if there is no mem resource.
With the prior arrangement no mem resource means the x86 default
address is used, which is the only way I can see how your system
works.
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