From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jarkko Sakkinen Subject: Re: [tpmdd-devel] [PATCH] tpm: fix suspend/resume paths for TPM 2.0 Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2015 19:33:12 +0200 Message-ID: <1422379992.2912.6.camel@linux.intel.com> References: <1422356564-17312-1-git-send-email-jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com> <1422377842.2912.1.camel@linux.intel.com> <20150127170308.GA10140@obsidianresearch.com> <1422379417.2912.4.camel@linux.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1422379417.2912.4.camel@linux.intel.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Jason Gunthorpe Cc: Scot Doyle , peterhuewe@gmx.de, ashley@ashleylai.com, christophe.ricard@gmail.com, jason.gunthorpe@obsidianresearch.com, linux-api@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, tpmdd-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, trousers-tech@lists.sourceforge.net List-Id: linux-api@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 2015-01-27 at 19:23 +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > On Tue, 2015-01-27 at 10:03 -0700, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 06:57:22PM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > > > > > + /* TPM 1.2 requires self-test on resume. */ > > > > > + if (!(chip->flags & TPM_CHIP_FLAG_TPM2)) { > > > > > + ret = tpm_do_selftest(chip); > > > > > + if (ret < 0) > > > > > + return ret; > > > > > > > > Just to note, the return value from tpm_do_selftest() on TPM 1.2 chips was > > > > previously ignored. Mine does return 0. > > > > > > Right. I can update the patch to ignore return value if the majority > > > wants that. > > > > What happens to the system when pnp_driver.resume() returns failure? > > > > Should tpm ever report failure on resume to the rest of the kernel? > > > > Shouldn't this stuff be in tpm_pm_resume common code anyhow? > > I think it should but not in the scope of this bug fix IMHO. This may sound stupid but maybe I should not handle the return value of tpm_do_selftest() with the same reasoning (not in the scope of this fix) because it modifies semantics and my fix only fixes TPM 2.0 stuff. I could leave a comment there that this return value is not handle as a remainder. > > Jason /Jarkko