Re: [RFC] tpm_tis: Fix subsequent suspend failures

[Rajiv Andrade <srajiv@linux.vnet.ibm.com>]

On Jun 23, 2010, at 4:18 PM, Andrew Morton wrote:

> On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 00:08:44 -0300
> Rajiv Andrade <srajiv@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> 
>> On Wed, 2010-06-09 at 15:11 +0200, Helmut Schaa wrote:
>>> Fix subsequent suspends by issuing tpm_continue_selftest during resume.
>>> Otherwise, the tpm chip seems to be not fully initialized and will reject
>>> the save state command during suspend, thus preventing the whole system
>>> to suspend.
>>> 
>>> Signed-off-by: Helmut Schaa <helmut.schaa@googlemail.com>
>>> ---
>>> 
>>> Not sure if the platform resume method should be fixed in the same way.
>>> Plase review.
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> Helmut
>>> 
>>> drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis.c |    9 ++++++++-
>>> 1 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>>> 
>>> diff --git a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis.c b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis.c
>>> index 24314a9..1030f84 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis.c
>>> @@ -623,7 +623,14 @@ static int tpm_tis_pnp_suspend(struct pnp_dev *dev, pm_message_t msg)
>>> 
>>> static int tpm_tis_pnp_resume(struct pnp_dev *dev)
>>> {
>>> -	return tpm_pm_resume(&dev->dev);
>>> +	struct tpm_chip *chip = pnp_get_drvdata(dev);
>>> +	int ret;
>>> +
>>> +	ret = tpm_pm_resume(&dev->dev);
>>> +	if (!ret)
>>> +		tpm_continue_selftest(chip);
>>> +
>>> +	return ret;
>>> }
>>> 
>>> static struct pnp_device_id tpm_pnp_tbl[] __devinitdata = {
>> 
>> Sorry the ones on CC, previous message got messed up by the mail client.
>> 
>> This patch fixes https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16256
>> 
>> Link to original post given it wasn't submitted to LKML originally:
>> http://marc.info/?l=tpmdd-devel&m=127609160616162&w=2
>> 
>> Acked-by: Rajiv Andrade <srajiv@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
>> 
> 
> (top-posting repaired.  Please don't do that).
> 
> This wasn't a very good way to send a patch.  I edited the diff,
> reconstructed the patch and then assembled a decent-looking changelog. 
> I also changed your acked-by to the required signed-off-by, because you
> were on the patch's delivery path.
> 
> Pretty please: next time, prepare a proper mergeable patch with the
> correct attributions and signoffs?  Thanks.

Sure, sorry. I was just not certain if I could just resent Helmut's patch to LKML without messing with his authorship.

Thanks,
Rajiv