Re: [Fwd: Re: [PATCH] tpm: interrupt clear fix]

[Greg KH <greg@kroah.com>]

On Mon, Jul 17, 2006 at 11:35:20AM -0700, Kylene Jo Hall wrote:
> -------- Forwarded Message --------
> From: Kylene Jo Hall <kjhall@us.ibm.com>
> To: linux-os (Dick Johnson) <linux-os@analogic.com>
> Cc: linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, TPM Device Driver List
> <tpmdd-devel@lists.sourceforge.net>, akpm@osdl.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] tpm: interrupt clear fix
> Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 12:24:36 -0700
> Under stress testing I found that the interrupt is not always cleared.
> This is a bug and this patch should go into 2.6.18 and 2.6.17.x.
> 
> On Thu, 2006-07-13 at 07:45 -0400, linux-os (Dick Johnson) wrote:
> 
> > PCI devices need a final read to flush all pending writes. Whatever
> > mb() does, just hides the problem.
> 
> 
> Signed-off-by: Kylene Hall <kjhall@us.ibm.com>
> ---
> 
> --- linux-2.6.18-rc1/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis.c	2006-07-13 14:46:39.727500500 -0500
> +++ linux-2.6.18-rc1-tpm/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis.c	2006-07-13 14:47:33.878884750 -0500
> @@ -424,6 +424,7 @@ static irqreturn_t tis_int_handler(int i
>  	iowrite32(interrupt,
>  		  chip->vendor.iobase +
>  		  TPM_INT_STATUS(chip->vendor.locality));
> +	ioread32(chip->vendor.iobase + TPM_INT_STATUS(chip->vendor.locality));
>  	return IRQ_HANDLED;
>  }

So does this replace the other tpm patch?  Or should we apply both of
them?

thanks,

greg k-h