Hi >Betreff: [PATCH] tpm, tpm_crb: migrate to struct acpi_table_tpm2 and >acpi_tpm2_control > Migrate to struct acpi_table_tpm2 and struct acpi_tpm2_control defined > in include/acpi/actbl3.h from the internal structures.
I definitely do like the idea! Thanks for spotting this! However one small remark > -struct crb_control_area { > - u32 req; > - u32 sts; > - u32 cancel; > - u32 start; > - u32 int_enable; > - u32 int_sts; > - u32 cmd_size; > - u64 cmd_pa; > - u32 rsp_size; > - u64 rsp_pa; > -} __packed; > - > > - if (le32_to_cpu(ioread32(&priv->cca->sts)) & CRB_CA_STS_ERROR) > + if (le32_to_cpu(ioread32(&priv->ctl->error)) & CRB_CA_STS_ERROR) > return -EIO; I know the fields are described in include/acpi/actbl3.h as +struct acpi_tpm2_control { + u32 reserved; + u32 error; + u32 cancel; + u32 start; + u64 interrupt_control; + u32 command_size; + u64 command_address; + u32 response_size; + u64 response_address; +}; but are the names there still correct? Isn't this information outdated? The acpi spec refers to the MS spec which is not present anymore, and MS refers to the TCG -- and in the PTP your names are used. ---> We should update the ACPI header? At least the naming for reserved and error. What do you think? Thanks, Peter -- 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/