Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 30 Sep 2015 08:56:12 +0300 | From | Jarkko Sakkinen <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/2] tpm, tpm_tis: use acpi_driver instead of pnp_driver |
| |
On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 11:26:53AM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 08:07:10PM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > > > -static struct pnp_device_id tpm_pnp_tbl[] = { > > +static struct acpi_device_id tpm_acpi_tbl[] = { > > {"PNP0C31", 0}, /* TPM */ > > {"ATM1200", 0}, /* Atmel */ > > {"IFX0102", 0}, /* Infineon */ > > @@ -925,28 +941,34 @@ static struct pnp_device_id tpm_pnp_tbl[] = { > > {"", 0}, /* User Specified */ > > {"", 0} /* Terminator */ > > }; > > Is this OK? I don't know alot about x86 PNP, but I thought the > pnp_device_id scheme would work with ACPI and legacy PNPBIOS stuff, > and changing to ACPI means ACPI only? > > If so, should we care? Is there a spec for non-ACPI TPM discovery we > need to be following here?
I found at least all the IDs listed from drivers/acpi/acpi_pnp.c but you might be right that they might be (don't know) with pnpbios.
Maybe a better solution would to have two tables and have only MSFT0101 in tpm_acpi_tbl in order to make sure that old functionality is not broken up because we want this also to the stable kernels.
/Jarkko
| |