[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160830034536.GA29261@obsidianresearch.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2016 21:45:36 -0600
From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgunthorpe@...idianresearch.com>
To: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Peter Huewe <peterhuewe@....de>,
Marcel Selhorst <tpmdd@...horst.net>,
"moderated list:TPM DEVICE DRIVER"
<tpmdd-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net>,
open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tpm: fix invalid constant expressions in tpm.h
On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 04:28:17AM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> The enums tpm_capabilities and tpm_sub_capabilities do not contain legit
> constant expressions. This commit makes cap_id a separate parameter
> in
I wonder if this is a bug in sparse? the macro uses gcc magic to
expand to a constexpr.
You could also use __constant_cpu_to_be32 and similar instead.
But I admit I never liked the use of no-host endian in the constants..
> #define TPM_ORD_STARTUP cpu_to_be32(153)
> #define TPM_ST_CLEAR cpu_to_be16(1)
Would be nice to see these fixed into an enum someday too
> +enum tpm1_capabilities {
> + TPM1_CAP_FLAG = 0x04,
> + TPM1_CAP_PROP = 0x05,
> + TPM1_CAP_VERSION_1_1 = 0x06,
> + TPM1_CAP_VERSION_1_2 = 0x1A,
I usually discourage the extra horizontal whitespace, just causes patch churn to
keep it up (and clang-format won't do it automatically). Not sure if
there is a consensus on that though.
But looks fine to me.
Reviewed-by: Jason Gunthorpe <jgunthorpe@...idianresearch.com>
Jason
Powered by blists - more mailing lists