On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 08:01:34PM +0100, martin.wi...@ts.fujitsu.com wrote: > From: Martin Wilck <martin.wi...@ts.fujitsu.com> > > Since b8b2c7d845d5, platform_drv_probe() is called for all platform > devices. If drv->probe is NULL, and dev_pm_domain_attach() fails, > platform_drv_probe() will return the error code from dev_pm_domain_attach(). > > This causes real_probe() to enter the "probe_failed" path and set > dev->driver to NULL. Before b8b2c7d845d5, real_probe() would assume > success if both dev->bus->probe and drv->probe are missing. > > This may cause a panic later. For example, inserting the tpm_tis > driver with parameter "force=1" (i.e. registering tpm_tis as a platform > driver) will panic in tpmm_chip_alloc() because dev->driver is NULL: > > chip->cdev.owner = chip->pdev->driver->owner;
Is this happening because tpm_tis is not creating the platform device properly? ie it just calls platform_device_register_simple and then force initializes it via tpm_tis_init, which expects to be called from a probe function with an attached driver. Instead we should setup a proper platform device with the default IO range for x86 and let the driver core call tpm_tis_init via tis_drv.probe. Would changing things in this way fix the problem you've observed? I have some patches to do this that are part of my OF enablement series, but I can make something simpler that would deal with this fairly quickly if you can test. Jason -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
