Re: [PATCH 1/2] tpm, tpm_tis: use acpi_driver instead of pnp_driver

[Jason Gunthorpe]

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?

>  	struct tpm_chip *chip;
> -#ifdef CONFIG_PNP
> +#ifdef CONFIG_ACPI

Can you look at the various ifdefs and see if they can be something
like:

>  	if (!force) {
> -		pnp_unregister_driver(&tis_pnp_driver);
> +		acpi_bus_unregister_driver(&tis_acpi_driver);

  if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_ACPI))
		acpi_bus_unregister_driver(&tis_acpi_driver);

I think alot of the core driver stuff supports that now?

Jason
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/