Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 4 Jan 2008 17:39:17 +0100 | From | Pavel Machek <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] - TPM save state before suspending to ram |
| |
On Thu 2008-01-03 21:44:15, Marcel Selhorst wrote: > Dear list, > > this patch fixes a bug, that prevents the TPM chip to resume correctly from a > suspended state. > > Signed-off-by: Marcel Selhorst <tpm@selhorst.net> > --- > --- linux-tpm/drivers/char/tpm/tpm.c 2008-01-03 20:44:43.000000000 +0100 > +++ linux/drivers/char/tpm/tpm.c 2008-01-03 21:08:13.000000000 +0100 > @@ -1041,7 +1041,7 @@ void tpm_remove_hardware(struct device * > } > EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(tpm_remove_hardware); > > -static u8 savestate[] = { > +static const u8 savestate[] = { > 0, 193, /* TPM_TAG_RQU_COMMAND */ > 0, 0, 0, 10, /* blob length (in bytes) */ > 0, 0, 0, 152 /* TPM_ORD_SaveState */ > @@ -1053,11 +1053,13 @@ static u8 savestate[] = { > */ > int tpm_pm_suspend(struct device *dev, pm_message_t pm_state) > { > + u8 data[max_t(int, max(ARRAY_SIZE(savestate), ARRAY_SIZE(savestate)), 10)]; > struct tpm_chip *chip = dev_get_drvdata(dev); > if (chip == NULL) > return -ENODEV; > > - tpm_transmit(chip, savestate, sizeof(savestate)); > + memcpy(data, savestate, sizeof(savestate)); > + tpm_transmit(chip, data, sizeof(data)); > return 0; > } > EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(tpm_pm_suspend);
I'm not sure if we want to use variable-size array on stack. What hacks are you doing with max_t/max? Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
| |