On Mon, Dec 07, 2015 at 10:52:51AM +0100, Wilck, Martin wrote: > > > > 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. > > > > > > Repeat, the memory resource DOES exist on my system. Not sure what proof > > > you saw there. > > > > Ok, lets go this through. > > > > I deduced this from two facts: > > > > * It used to have memory resource as conditional and as a fallback use > > fixed value. > > * Your workaround reverted the situation to this. > > > > Did I understand something incorrectly? > > The problem in my case didn't occur because ACPI was lacking a resource. > It has one "extra" resource that Jason's original code didn't > recognize. > > Jason's code was wrongly assuming that a resource that isn't of type > "IRQ" has to be of type "MEMORY". If I print out the resource types > encountered in tpm_check_resource(), I get > ACPI_RESOURCE_TYPE_FIXED_MEMORY32 (0x0a) first, followed by > ACPI_RESOURCE_TYPE_END_TAG (0x07). The latter was mistakenly used by > Jason't code as a memory resource. This is how ACPI ResourceTemplates > work (a list with an end marker). The correct solution is to always > check the return value of acpi_dev_resource_memory(), as it's currently > implemented in Jason't current "for-jarkko" branch.
Aah. Right. > Martin /Jarkko -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
