lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [Sep]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [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


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-09-30 08:21    [W:0.075 / U:1.280 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site