On Tue, 2015-01-27 at 19:23 +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> On Tue, 2015-01-27 at 10:03 -0700, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 06:57:22PM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > > > > + /* TPM 1.2 requires self-test on resume. */
> > > > > + if (!(chip->flags & TPM_CHIP_FLAG_TPM2)) {
> > > > > + ret = tpm_do_selftest(chip);
> > > > > + if (ret < 0)
> > > > > + return ret;
> > > >
> > > > Just to note, the return value from tpm_do_selftest() on TPM 1.2 chips
> > > > was
> > > > previously ignored. Mine does return 0.
> > >
> > > Right. I can update the patch to ignore return value if the majority
> > > wants that.
> >
> > What happens to the system when pnp_driver.resume() returns failure?
> >
> > Should tpm ever report failure on resume to the rest of the kernel?
> >
> > Shouldn't this stuff be in tpm_pm_resume common code anyhow?
>
> I think it should but not in the scope of this bug fix IMHO.
This may sound stupid but maybe I should not handle the return value of
tpm_do_selftest() with the same reasoning (not in the scope of this fix)
because it modifies semantics and my fix only fixes TPM 2.0 stuff.
I could leave a comment there that this return value is not handle as a
remainder.
> > Jason
/Jarkko
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dive into the World of Parallel Programming. The Go Parallel Website,
sponsored by Intel and developed in partnership with Slashdot Media, is your
hub for all things parallel software development, from weekly thought
leadership blogs to news, videos, case studies, tutorials and more. Take a
look and join the conversation now. http://goparallel.sourceforge.net/
_______________________________________________
TrouSerS-tech mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/trousers-tech
