On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 11:26:53AM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 08:07:10PM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
>
> > -static struct pnp_device_id tpm_pnp_tbl[] = {
> > +static struct acpi_device_id tpm_acpi_tbl[] = {
> > {"PNP0C31", 0}, /* TPM */
> > {"ATM1200", 0}, /* Atmel */
> > {"IFX0102", 0}, /* Infineon */
> > @@ -925,28 +941,34 @@ static struct pnp_device_id tpm_pnp_tbl[] = {
> > {"", 0}, /* User Specified */
> > {"", 0} /* Terminator */
> > };
>
> Is this OK? I don't know alot about x86 PNP, but I thought the
> pnp_device_id scheme would work with ACPI and legacy PNPBIOS stuff,
> and changing to ACPI means ACPI only?
>
> If so, should we care? Is there a spec for non-ACPI TPM discovery we
> need to be following here?
I found at least all the IDs listed from drivers/acpi/acpi_pnp.c but you
might be right that they might be (don't know) with pnpbios.
Maybe a better solution would to have two tables and have only MSFT0101
in tpm_acpi_tbl in order to make sure that old functionality is not
broken up because we want this also to the stable kernels.
/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/
