Ah, yes, right. Too early on Monday still :) Josh
On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 11:24 AM, Jason Gunthorpe <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, May 08, 2017 at 11:16:56AM -0700, Josh Zimmerman wrote: >> Hm, according to include/linux/pm.h, >> >> * It is allowed to unregister devices while the above callbacks are being >> * executed. However, a callback routine MUST NOT try to >> unregister the device >> * it was called for, although it may unregister children of that device >> (for >> * example, if it detects that a child was unplugged while the system was >> * asleep). >> >> So, it seems if we want to add shutdown to class->pm, we'll need to do >> the refactoring for sysfs now to avoid the implicit lock in order to >> safely NULL out chip->ops. (Otherwise, I believe we'd need to >> unregister.)\\ >> >> I'll start work on that, but I wanted to send this email first to >> double-check that my understanding was correct and I wasn't missing an >> easier path. > > Like I said, if you guard shutdown with a 'if TPM2' then the sysfs > case cannot occur.. > > It eventually needs to be fixed for TPM1, but a TPM2 only first step > would be OK too. > > Jason ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot _______________________________________________ tpmdd-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/tpmdd-devel
