Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 7 Feb 2019 09:53:50 -0700 | From | Jerry Snitselaar <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2] tpm/tpm_crb: Avoid unaligned reads in crb_recv() |
| |
On Thu Feb 07 19, Sasha Levin wrote: >Hi, > >[This is an automated email] > >This commit has been processed because it contains a "Fixes:" tag, >fixing commit: 30fc8d138e91 tpm: TPM 2.0 CRB Interface. > >The bot has tested the following trees: v4.20.6, v4.19.19, v4.14.97, v4.9.154, v4.4.172. > >v4.20.6: Build OK! >v4.19.19: Build OK! >v4.14.97: Build OK! >v4.9.154: Failed to apply! Possible dependencies: > 13b1f4a571cc ("tpm_crb: map locality registers") > b4e2eb0651ac ("tpm crb: Work around BIOS's that report the wrong ACPI region size") > >v4.4.172: Failed to apply! Possible dependencies: > 13b1f4a571cc ("tpm_crb: map locality registers")
I'm guessing it is tripping over this not being applied
> 14ddfbf488a0 ("tpm_crb: drop struct resource res from struct crb_priv") > 1bd047be37d9 ("tpm_crb: Use devm_ioremap_resource") > 1e3ed59d6200 ("tpm_crb: Drop le32_to_cpu(ioread32(..))") > 25112048cd59 ("tpm: rework tpm_get_timeouts()") > 30f9c8c9e2ea ("tpm_crb/tis: fix: use dev_name() for /proc/iomem") > 422eac3f7dea ("tpm_crb: fix mapping of the buffers") > 4886cd80cb8e ("Revert "tmp/tpm_crb: implement runtime pm for tpm_crb"") > 4d627e672bd0 ("tpm_tis: Do not fall back to a hardcoded address for TPM2") > 51dd43dff74b ("tpm_tis: Use devm_ioremap_resource") > 55a889c2cb13 ("tpm_crb: Use the common ACPI definition of struct acpi_tpm2") > 7ab4032fa579 ("tpm_tis: Get rid of the duplicate IRQ probing code") > 9514ff1961c6 ("tmp/tpm_crb: fix Intel PTT hw bug during idle state") > aa77ea0e43dc ("tpm/tpm_crb: cache cmd_size register value.") > ba5287b6ef6a ("tpm/tpm_crb: implement tpm crb idle state") > e17acbbb69d3 ("tpm/tpm_crb: implement tpm crb idle state") > e350e24694e4 ("tmp/tpm_crb: implement runtime pm for tpm_crb") > e3837e74a06d ("tpm_tis: Refactor the interrupt setup") > ef7b81dc7864 ("tpm_tis: Disable interrupt auto probing on a per-device basis") > > >How should we proceed with this patch? > >-- >Thanks, >Sasha
| |