Re: [PATCH] tpm/tpm_i2c_infineon: ensure no ongoing commands on shutdown

[Jason Gunthorpe <jgunthorpe-ePGOBjL8dl3ta4EC/59zMFaTQe2KTcn/@public.gmane.org>]

On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 12:13:36PM -0800, Andrey Pronin wrote:
> > Is there some way we can have the TPM core do this without requiring
> > the driver to add a shutdown the struct driver?
> > 
> > Maybe we could put something in chip->dev->driver? Not sure..
> 
> I can play more with it. We can check in tpm_chip_register() if
> chip->dev->driver->shutdown is NULL, and, if so, set it to a default
> handler. Or, do register_reboot_notifier() instead, to avoid messing
> with struct device_driver from tpm-chip.c. Not sure if that's a
> consideration at alli - any reason not to mess with those structures?

I think ordering is important here, the TPM core has to do any
shutdown before the driver shutdown method. That restriction might
entirely preclude using a reboot_notifier.

> Whatever we do, we should allow the drivers to still send
> (vendor-specific) commands from their shutdown handlers.

A vendor specific command should be done via a new core TPM
mechanism. I really want to keep access drivers (eg i2c, lpc, spi,
etc) out of the buisness of *assuming* they are connected to any
specific chip.

So, the core should detect chip XYZ and then issue the required
vendor-specific command in some way.

The driver shutdown would be used to close the access interface in
some way.

> But, yes, setting a default handler through chip->dev->driver
> might just be good enough.

Probably the *best* thing would be to add shutdown to 'struct class'
in the driver core like suspend/resume?

Jason

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot