Re: [tpmdd-devel] tpm, tpm_tis: fix tpm_tis ACPI detection issue with TPM 2.0

[Jarkko Sakkinen]

On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 05:58:35PM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 01:49:02PM +0200, Andreas Ziegler wrote:
> > Hi Jarkko,
> > 
> > your patch "tpm, tpm_tis: fix tpm_tis ACPI detection issue with TPM 2.0"
> > showed up as commit 399235dc6e95 in linux-next today (that is,
> > next-20151020). I noticed it because we (a research group from
> > Erlangen[0]) are running daily checks on linux-next.
> > 
> > Your commit creates the following structure of #ifdef blocks in
> > drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis.c following line 1088:
> > 
> >  #ifdef CONFIG_ACPI
> >  ...
> >  #ifdef CONFIG_PNP
> >  ...
> >  #endif
> >  ...
> >  #endif
> > 
> > Looking at the definition of CONFIG_ACPI at drivers/acpi/Kconfig, line
> > 5, we see that ACPI unconditionally selects PNP, meaning that CONFIG_PNP
> > is always enabled if CONFIG_ACPI has been enabled.
> > Thus, the inner #ifdef statement can never evaluate to 'false' if the
> > outer #ifdef evaluates to true (i.e., CONFIG_ACPI is enabled), and
> > hence, the #ifdef is unnecessary.
> > 
> > The same situation holds for the nested structure following line 1124,
> > where the #ifdef CONFIG_PNP at line 1129 is unnecessary.
> > 
> > Is this correct or did we miss something?
> 
> Good catch. Shoud I send a separate fix for this? Thanks for pointing
> this out.

In all I would cases do a separate fix and do not fixup the original
patchs because I wouldn't consider this a regression.

The next question is: will it always be like this? Can I safely assume
that ACPI will always select PNP unconditionally? This is so minor
cosmetic glitch in the code that I'm getting second thoughts whether I
should anything to this or not.

/Jarkko
--
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/