Re: [RFC] tpm_tis: Fix subsequent suspend failures

From: Andrew Morton
Date: Wed Jun 23 2010 - 15:19:46 EST


On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 00:08:44 -0300
Rajiv Andrade <srajiv@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >
> > 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>

(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.
--
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/