[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5B8DA87D05A7694D9FA63FD143655C1B641D8F02@hasmsx108.ger.corp.intel.com>
Date: Mon, 15 May 2017 16:17:36 +0000
From: "Winkler, Tomas" <tomas.winkler@...el.com>
To: Jason Gunthorpe <jgunthorpe@...idianresearch.com>
CC: Josh Zimmerman <joshz@...gle.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"tpmdd-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net"
<tpmdd-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
Subject: RE: [tpmdd-devel] [PATCH] Add "shutdown" to "struct class".
>
> On Sat, May 13, 2017 at 12:43:11PM +0000, Winkler, Tomas wrote:
> > > The TPM class has some common shutdown code that must be executed
> > > for all drivers. This adds some needed functionality for that
> >
> > The issue with this is, that on some platforms the only storage can be
> > eMMC and TPM is using it,. It has to be ensured that the storage
> > device won't go down before TPM2_shutdown is called. And there is no
> > direct device hierarchy to ensure an orderly shutdown.
>
> Something will have to use the new device links stuff to define that
> dependency, but that seems unrelated to this patch?
Yep, it's not directly related to this specific patch, this is more relevant particularly to TPM2_shutdown.
> Can the kernel really shut down the eMMC while the hidden platform stuff is
> still possibly using it? Goofy..
eMMC is single headed, so yes that can happen.
Tomas
Powered by blists - more mailing lists