Re: [tpmdd-devel] TPM drivers support and Linux Integrity Module for 2.6.30

[Andy Isaacson <adi@hexapodia.org>]

On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 01:02:27PM -0300, Rajiv Andrade wrote:
> Yep, sorry. Two options:
> 
> 1- Inside that check, if got an error when in that particular
> tpm_getcap() stacked call, consider that it might be this iTPM, and
> bypass it just to get the value from the chip (would happen only once) -
> Would work, but it's odd.
> 
> 2- Forget manufacturer_id and base the decision on the PNP_ID as david
> suggested. I previously considered it but since it would end up in
> modifying tpm_tis_init() prototype (struct device * to struct pnp_dev *)
> and then wouldn't work when loading as a module with force option on, so
> I moved to the manufacturer_id approach.
> 
> I'll get back to #2 meanwhile and post the patch, seems not hard to
> accomplish though..

I've got a set of patches that seem to resolve my iTPM woes.  I've
mostly tested on T400 but I also tried X200.

I'll send the patches as a separate thread (unfortunately I can't get
git-send-email 1.6.3.1 to set a in-reply-to header on 0/5 without also
breaking threading on x/5.)

-andy