On Sun, Dec 06, 2015 at 06:02:26AM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > On Thu, Dec 03, 2015 at 11:19:32AM -0700, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 03, 2015 at 08:00:42AM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > > > > > I guess it'd be more realiable. In my NUC the current fix works and the > > > people who tested it. If you supply me a fix that changes it to use that > > > I can test it and this will give also coverage to the people who tested > > > my original fix. > > > > Here is the updated series: > > > > https://github.com/jgunthorpe/linux/commits/for-jarkko > > > > What does your dmesg say? > > > > It really isn't OK to hardwire an address for acpi devices, so I've > > added something like this. Just completely guessing that control_pa is > > where the BIOS is hiding the base address. Maybe it is cca->cmd_pa ? > > I'm a bit confused about the discussion because Martin replied that > tpm_tis used to get the address range before applying this series. > > And pnp_driver in the backend for TPM 1.x devices grabs the address > range from DSDT.
You can completely ignore this question. I saw Martins reply with a fix for "tpm_tis: Use devm_ioremap_resource" that you should squash into that change. So it's proved that TPM ACPI device objects do not always have a memory resource. Good. I think these changes are important but there's no really reason to rush them. Maybe, since there's been a lot of commentary, it'd be better to resubmit a new revision of the series to the mailing list so that it can be peer-reviewed once again. > /Jarkko /Jarkko -- 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/