Hi,
nice to see that the tpm framework was cleanned.
Le Tue, 25 Oct 2005 10:22:18 -0500, Kylene Jo Hall a écrit :
> ---
>
> --- linux-2.6.14-rc4/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_infineon.c 2005-10-19 17:03:52.000000000 -0500
> +++ linux-2.6.13-tpm/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_infineon.c 2005-10-21 13:07:24.000000000 -0500
> @@ -14,6 +14,7 @@
> * License.
> */
>
> +#include <acpi/acpi_bus.h>
Why is it needed ?
> -/* These values will be filled after PnP-call */
> +/* These values will be filled after ACPI-call */
Why not keep PnP ?
> -MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(pnp, tpm_pnp_tbl);
>
Why removing that ?
This will allow hotplug and udev to auto load the module.
> +
> + /* read IO-ports from ACPI */
> + TPM_INF_ADDR = (pnp_port_start(dev, 0) & 0xff);
> + TPM_INF_DATA = ((TPM_INF_ADDR + 1) & 0xff);
No need to set mask, this is already done by pnp_port_start.
And I'll keep PNP instead of ACPI.
> + tpm_inf.base = pnp_port_start(dev, 1);
Can't you be coherent ?
why not using tpm_inf.addr
or TPM_INF_BASE ?
> + dev_info(&dev->dev, "Found %s with ID %s\n",
> + dev->name, dev_id->id);
> + if (!((tpm_inf.base >> 8) & 0xff))
> + tpm_inf.base = 0;
>
> /* Make sure, we have received valid config ports */
You should also do :
pnp_port_flags(device, 0) & IORESOURCE_DISABLED) in order to check the
resources.
> + .probe = tpm_inf_acpi_probe,
> + .remove = tpm_inf_remove,
Not coherent : acpi vs nothing.
Again prefer pnp instead of acpi.
Matthieu
-
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]
