From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jason Gunthorpe Subject: Re: [PATCH] tpm: do not suspend/resume if power stays on Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2017 16:18:36 -0700 Message-ID: <20170301231836.GE2820@obsidianresearch.com> References: <20170301115116.19696-1-enric.balletbo@collabora.com> <20170301135429.GF28874@leverpostej> <20170301184333.GA12197@obsidianresearch.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: tpmdd-devel-bounces-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org To: Sonny Rao Cc: Mark Rutland , Rob Herring , "linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org" , tpmdd-devel-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org List-Id: tpmdd-devel@lists.sourceforge.net On Wed, Mar 01, 2017 at 02:39:09PM -0800, Sonny Rao wrote: > > We recently added global suspend/resume callbacks to the TPM > > core. Those call backs do not power off the TPM, they just prepare its > > internal state to loose power to the chip. Skipping that process on > > hardware that does not power-off the TPM makes sense to me. > > > > But, Sonny, perhaps this should be a global flag in tpm_chip, not a > > per-interface-driver override? > > It's a property of the board design not the chip -- maybe I'm > misunderstanding? I mean do not add the code to handle this to tpm_i2c_infineon.c but in the common chip code instead. tpm_i2c_infineon.c should only parse DT properties that are relavent to the bus that delivers commands to the TPM, things that apply to how a TPM chip operates should be handled in the core code because they apply to any command transport bus. Jason ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot