[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <93400d11833bd42c4be0b846416ff1f469904784.camel@linux.intel.com>
Date: Fri, 09 Aug 2019 21:02:01 +0300
From: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>
To: Stephen Boyd <swboyd@...omium.org>, Peter Huewe <peterhuewe@....de>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org,
Andrey Pronin <apronin@...omium.org>,
Duncan Laurie <dlaurie@...omium.org>,
Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Guenter Roeck <groeck@...omium.org>,
Alexander Steffen <Alexander.Steffen@...ineon.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/4] tpm: Add a flag to indicate TPM power is
managed by firmware
On Tue, 2019-08-06 at 15:07 -0700, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> On some platforms, the TPM power is managed by firmware and therefore we
> don't need to stop the TPM on suspend when going to a light version of
> suspend such as S0ix ("freeze" suspend state). Add a chip flag to
> indicate this so that certain platforms can probe for the usage of this
> light suspend and avoid touching the TPM state across suspend/resume.
The commit message should mention the new constant.
> + if (chip->flags & TPM_CHIP_FLAG_FIRMWARE_POWER_MANAGED)
> + if (!pm_suspend_via_firmware())
Why both checks are needed?
If both checks are needed, you could write it as a single
conditional statement:
if (chip->flags & TPM_CHIP_FLAG_FIRMWARE_POWER_MANAGED &&
!pm_suspend_via_firmware())
/Jarkko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists