From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753334AbbI3F4W (ORCPT ); Wed, 30 Sep 2015 01:56:22 -0400 Received: from mga02.intel.com ([134.134.136.20]:12957 "EHLO mga02.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751185AbbI3F4V (ORCPT ); Wed, 30 Sep 2015 01:56:21 -0400 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.17,611,1437462000"; d="scan'208";a="654854336" Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2015 08:56:12 +0300 From: Jarkko Sakkinen To: Jason Gunthorpe Cc: tpmdd-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, peterhuewe@gmx.de, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, mjg59@srcf.ucam.org, Marcel Selhorst Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] tpm, tpm_tis: use acpi_driver instead of pnp_driver Message-ID: <20150930055612.GA3874@intel.com> References: <1443546431-14948-1-git-send-email-jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com> <1443546431-14948-2-git-send-email-jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com> <20150929172653.GB23056@obsidianresearch.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20150929172653.GB23056@obsidianresearch.com> Organization: Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - Westendinkatu 7, 02160 Espoo User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 11:26:53AM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 08:07:10PM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > > > -static struct pnp_device_id tpm_pnp_tbl[] = { > > +static struct acpi_device_id tpm_acpi_tbl[] = { > > {"PNP0C31", 0}, /* TPM */ > > {"ATM1200", 0}, /* Atmel */ > > {"IFX0102", 0}, /* Infineon */ > > @@ -925,28 +941,34 @@ static struct pnp_device_id tpm_pnp_tbl[] = { > > {"", 0}, /* User Specified */ > > {"", 0} /* Terminator */ > > }; > > Is this OK? I don't know alot about x86 PNP, but I thought the > pnp_device_id scheme would work with ACPI and legacy PNPBIOS stuff, > and changing to ACPI means ACPI only? > > If so, should we care? Is there a spec for non-ACPI TPM discovery we > need to be following here? I found at least all the IDs listed from drivers/acpi/acpi_pnp.c but you might be right that they might be (don't know) with pnpbios. Maybe a better solution would to have two tables and have only MSFT0101 in tpm_acpi_tbl in order to make sure that old functionality is not broken up because we want this also to the stable kernels. /Jarkko