On Thu, 2005-04-28 at 21:28 -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 28, 2005 at 03:40:16PM -0500, Kylene Hall wrote:
> > On Wed, 27 Apr 2005, Greg KH wrote:
> > > On Wed, Apr 27, 2005 at 05:19:03PM -0500, Kylene Hall wrote:
> > > > - device_remove_file(&pci_dev->dev, &dev_attr_pubek);
> > > > - device_remove_file(&pci_dev->dev, &dev_attr_pcrs);
> > > > - device_remove_file(&pci_dev->dev, &dev_attr_caps);
> > > > + for (i = 0; i < TPM_NUM_ATTR; i++)
> > > > + device_remove_file(&pci_dev->dev, &chip->vendor->attr[i]);
> > >
> > > Use an attribute group, instead of this. That will allow you to get
> > > rid of the TPM_NUM_ATTR value, and this looney macro:
> > >
> > > > +#define TPM_DEVICE_ATTRS { \
> > > > + __ATTR(pubek, S_IRUGO, tpm_show_pubek, NULL), \
> > > > + __ATTR(pcrs, S_IRUGO, tpm_show_pcrs, NULL), \
> > > > + __ATTR(caps, S_IRUGO, tpm_show_caps, NULL), \
> > > > + __ATTR(cancel, S_IWUSR | S_IWGRP, NULL, tpm_store_cancel) }
> > >
> > > thanks,
> > >
> > > greg k-h
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Ok, the patch below has the same functionality as the previous patch but
> > gets rid of the macro and implements an attribute_group. Is there any way
> > to avoid the repeated code in every tpm_specific file to setup the
> > attribute_group and still ensure the files are owned by the tpm_specific
> > module? The only thing I can come up with is either not using the
> > TPM_DEVICE macro at all or creating with TPM_DEVICE macro and then
> > changing the owner field.
>
> Why are you trying to split this driver up into such tiny pieces?
> What's wrong with one driver for all devices?
The driver was orginally all one piece and was split at the suggestion
of Ian Campbell on this list.
<snip>
On Fri, 2004-12-10 at 10:56 +0000, Ian Campbell wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, 2004-12-09 at 09:25 -0600, Kylene Hall wrote:
> > + /* Determine chip type */
> > + if (tpm_nsc_init(chip) == 0) {
> > + chip->recv = tpm_nsc_recv;
> > + chip->send = tpm_nsc_send;
> > + chip->cancel = tpm_nsc_cancel;
> > + chip->req_complete_mask = NSC_STATUS_OBF;
> > + chip->req_complete_val = NSC_STATUS_OBF;
> > + } else if (tpm_atml_init(chip) == 0) {
> > + chip->recv = tpm_atml_recv;
> > + chip->send = tpm_atml_send;
> > + chip->cancel = tpm_atml_cancel;
> > + chip->req_complete_mask =
> > + ATML_STATUS_BUSY | ATML_STATUS_DATA_AVAIL;
> > + chip->req_complete_val = ATML_STATUS_DATA_AVAIL;
> > + } else {
> > + rc = -ENODEV;
> > + goto out_release;
> > + }
>
> The atmel part at least also comes as an I2C variant.
>
> We could continue to add to the ifelse here but perhaps it might be
> beneficial to split the individual chip specific stuff into separate
> files now and perhaps register them via some sort of
> register_tpm_hardware(struct tpm_chip_ops *) type interface?
>
> Ian.
>
<snip>
TPM vendor specific code can better determine whether the chip belongs
to them or not. Since the pci_probe process takes care of checking the
possible drivers to claim a device it was decided to split the logic up.
Here is a link to the thread:
http://www.ussg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0412.1/0550.html
Kylie
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
