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
--
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/
