Re: tpm, tpm_tis: fix tpm_tis ACPI detection issue with TPM 2.0

Re: tpm, tpm_tis: fix tpm_tis ACPI detection issue with TPM 2.0

[Andreas Ziegler]

Hi Jarkko,

your patch "tpm, tpm_tis: fix tpm_tis ACPI detection issue with TPM 2.0"
showed up as commit 399235dc6e95 in linux-next today (that is,
next-20151020). I noticed it because we (a research group from
Erlangen[0]) are running daily checks on linux-next.

Your commit creates the following structure of #ifdef blocks in
drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis.c following line 1088:

 #ifdef CONFIG_ACPI
 ...
 #ifdef CONFIG_PNP
 ...
 #endif
 ...
 #endif

Looking at the definition of CONFIG_ACPI at drivers/acpi/Kconfig, line
5, we see that ACPI unconditionally selects PNP, meaning that CONFIG_PNP
is always enabled if CONFIG_ACPI has been enabled.
Thus, the inner #ifdef statement can never evaluate to 'false' if the
outer #ifdef evaluates to true (i.e., CONFIG_ACPI is enabled), and
hence, the #ifdef is unnecessary.

The same situation holds for the nested structure following line 1124,
where the #ifdef CONFIG_PNP at line 1129 is unnecessary.

Is this correct or did we miss something?

Regards,

Andreas

[0] https://cados.cs.fau.de

Re: tpm, tpm_tis: fix tpm_tis ACPI detection issue with TPM 2.0

[Jarkko Sakkinen]

On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 01:49:02PM +0200, Andreas Ziegler wrote:
> Hi Jarkko,
> 
> your patch "tpm, tpm_tis: fix tpm_tis ACPI detection issue with TPM 2.0"
> showed up as commit 399235dc6e95 in linux-next today (that is,
> next-20151020). I noticed it because we (a research group from
> Erlangen[0]) are running daily checks on linux-next.
> 
> Your commit creates the following structure of #ifdef blocks in
> drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis.c following line 1088:
> 
>  #ifdef CONFIG_ACPI
>  ...
>  #ifdef CONFIG_PNP
>  ...
>  #endif
>  ...
>  #endif
> 
> Looking at the definition of CONFIG_ACPI at drivers/acpi/Kconfig, line
> 5, we see that ACPI unconditionally selects PNP, meaning that CONFIG_PNP
> is always enabled if CONFIG_ACPI has been enabled.
> Thus, the inner #ifdef statement can never evaluate to 'false' if the
> outer #ifdef evaluates to true (i.e., CONFIG_ACPI is enabled), and
> hence, the #ifdef is unnecessary.
> 
> The same situation holds for the nested structure following line 1124,
> where the #ifdef CONFIG_PNP at line 1129 is unnecessary.
> 
> Is this correct or did we miss something?

Good catch. Shoud I send a separate fix for this? Thanks for pointing
this out.

> Regards,
> 
> Andreas
> 
> [0] https://cados.cs.fau.de

/Jarkko

Re: [tpmdd-devel] tpm, tpm_tis: fix tpm_tis ACPI detection issue with TPM 2.0

[Jarkko Sakkinen]

On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 05:58:35PM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 01:49:02PM +0200, Andreas Ziegler wrote:
> > Hi Jarkko,
> > 
> > your patch "tpm, tpm_tis: fix tpm_tis ACPI detection issue with TPM 2.0"
> > showed up as commit 399235dc6e95 in linux-next today (that is,
> > next-20151020). I noticed it because we (a research group from
> > Erlangen[0]) are running daily checks on linux-next.
> > 
> > Your commit creates the following structure of #ifdef blocks in
> > drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis.c following line 1088:
> > 
> >  #ifdef CONFIG_ACPI
> >  ...
> >  #ifdef CONFIG_PNP
> >  ...
> >  #endif
> >  ...
> >  #endif
> > 
> > Looking at the definition of CONFIG_ACPI at drivers/acpi/Kconfig, line
> > 5, we see that ACPI unconditionally selects PNP, meaning that CONFIG_PNP
> > is always enabled if CONFIG_ACPI has been enabled.
> > Thus, the inner #ifdef statement can never evaluate to 'false' if the
> > outer #ifdef evaluates to true (i.e., CONFIG_ACPI is enabled), and
> > hence, the #ifdef is unnecessary.
> > 
> > The same situation holds for the nested structure following line 1124,
> > where the #ifdef CONFIG_PNP at line 1129 is unnecessary.
> > 
> > Is this correct or did we miss something?
> 
> Good catch. Shoud I send a separate fix for this? Thanks for pointing
> this out.

In all I would cases do a separate fix and do not fixup the original
patchs because I wouldn't consider this a regression.

The next question is: will it always be like this? Can I safely assume
that ACPI will always select PNP unconditionally? This is so minor
cosmetic glitch in the code that I'm getting second thoughts whether I
should anything to this or not.

/Jarkko

Re: [tpmdd-devel] tpm, tpm_tis: fix tpm_tis ACPI detection issue with TPM 2.0

[Valentin Rothberg]

On Oct 21 '15 18:58, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 05:58:35PM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 01:49:02PM +0200, Andreas Ziegler wrote:
> > > Hi Jarkko,
> > > 
> > > your patch "tpm, tpm_tis: fix tpm_tis ACPI detection issue with TPM 2.0"
> > > showed up as commit 399235dc6e95 in linux-next today (that is,
> > > next-20151020). I noticed it because we (a research group from
> > > Erlangen[0]) are running daily checks on linux-next.
> > > 
> > > Your commit creates the following structure of #ifdef blocks in
> > > drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis.c following line 1088:
> > > 
> > >  #ifdef CONFIG_ACPI
> > >  ...
> > >  #ifdef CONFIG_PNP
> > >  ...
> > >  #endif
> > >  ...
> > >  #endif
> > > 
> > > Looking at the definition of CONFIG_ACPI at drivers/acpi/Kconfig, line
> > > 5, we see that ACPI unconditionally selects PNP, meaning that CONFIG_PNP
> > > is always enabled if CONFIG_ACPI has been enabled.
> > > Thus, the inner #ifdef statement can never evaluate to 'false' if the
> > > outer #ifdef evaluates to true (i.e., CONFIG_ACPI is enabled), and
> > > hence, the #ifdef is unnecessary.
> > > 
> > > The same situation holds for the nested structure following line 1124,
> > > where the #ifdef CONFIG_PNP at line 1129 is unnecessary.
> > > 
> > > Is this correct or did we miss something?
> > 
> > Good catch. Shoud I send a separate fix for this? Thanks for pointing
> > this out.
> 
> In all I would cases do a separate fix and do not fixup the original
> patchs because I wouldn't consider this a regression.
> 
> The next question is: will it always be like this? Can I safely assume
> that ACPI will always select PNP unconditionally? This is so minor
> cosmetic glitch in the code that I'm getting second thoughts whether I
> should anything to this or not.

Any option has certain benefits.  In the current form, a reader might
(falsely) assume that the block is configurable.  However, if the
constraints of ACPI or PNP change, the situation might look different.

Best regards,
 Valentin