From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S934840AbbI2R1M (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Tue, 29 Sep 2015 13:27:12 -0400
Received: from quartz.orcorp.ca ([184.70.90.242]:45031 "EHLO quartz.orcorp.ca"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1755567AbbI2R1B (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Tue, 29 Sep 2015 13:27:01 -0400
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2015 11:26:53 -0600
From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgunthorpe@obsidianresearch.com>
To: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>
Cc: tpmdd-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        peterhuewe@gmx.de, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org,
        akpm@linux-foundation.org, mjg59@srcf.ucam.org,
        Marcel Selhorst <tpmdd@selhorst.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] tpm, tpm_tis: use acpi_driver instead of pnp_driver
Message-ID: <20150929172653.GB23056@obsidianresearch.com>
References: <1443546431-14948-1-git-send-email-jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>
 <1443546431-14948-2-git-send-email-jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1443546431-14948-2-git-send-email-jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
X-Broken-Reverse-DNS: no host name found for IP address 10.0.0.160
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

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