On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 08:33:58PM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 11:58:29AM -0700, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > The TPM core has long assumed that every device has a driver attached,
> > however commit b8b2c7d845d5 ("base/platform: assert that dev_pm_domain
> > callbacks are called unconditionally") breaks that assumption.
>
> you asked for an alternative wording here. What about:
>
> The TPM core has long assumed that every device has a driver
> attached, which is not valid.
But it is valid, it is an invariant of the tpm core that a driver be
attached, and prior to 'b8b that has been satisfied.
> This was noticed with commit
> b8b2c7d845d5 ("base/platform: assert that dev_pm_domain
> callbacks are called unconditionally") which made probing of the
> tpm_tis device fail by mistake and resulted in an oops later on.
The probe didn't fail, the 'b8b causes a NULL probe function to result
in no driver being attached.
How about:
The TPM has for a long time required that every device it uses has an
attached driver. In the force case the tpm_tis driver met this via
platform_register_simple and a NULL probe function for the driver.
However, commit b8b2c7d845d5 ("base/platform: assert that dev_pm_domain
callbacks are called unconditionally") causes NULL probe functions
to no longer bind a driver.
Did we ever reach a conclusion if Martin's patch should go ahead?
Jason
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
