On Sat, May 08, 2021 at 10:46:57AM +0800, 乱石 wrote:
Hi,So, I just think that when you have this part:
在 2021/5/8 10:01, Jarkko Sakkinen 写道:
On Fri, May 07, 2021 at 10:52:55PM +0800, Liguang Zhang wrote:
In DSDT table, TPM _CID was SMO0768, and no _HID definition. After aPerhaps also hear fallback to tpm_tis_spi_probe?
kernel upgrade from 4.19 to 5.10, TPM probe function was changed which
causes device probe fails. In order to make newer kernel to be
compatible with the older acpi definition, it would be best set default
probe function.
Signed-off-by: Liguang Zhang <zhangliguang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_spi_main.c | 12 ++++++++----
1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_spi_main.c b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_spi_main.c
index 3856f6ebcb34..da632a582621 100644
--- a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_spi_main.c
+++ b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_spi_main.c
@@ -240,10 +240,14 @@ static int tpm_tis_spi_driver_probe(struct spi_device *spi)
tpm_tis_spi_probe_func probe_func;
probe_func = of_device_get_match_data(&spi->dev);
- if (!probe_func && spi_dev_id)
- probe_func = (tpm_tis_spi_probe_func)spi_dev_id->driver_data;
- if (!probe_func)
- return -ENODEV;
+ if (!probe_func) {
+ if (spi_dev_id) {
+ probe_func = (tpm_tis_spi_probe_func)spi_dev_id->driver_data;
+ if (!probe_func)
+ return -ENODEV;
Yes, I do not think of a good way. Do you have any suggestions?
if (!probe_func) {
if (spi_dev_id) {
probe_func = (tpm_tis_spi_probe_func)spi_dev_id->driver_data;
if (!probe_func)
return -ENODEV;
Why in here would not you also want to fallback to tpm_tis_spi_probe?
/Jarkko