On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 19:53:19 EDT, [email protected] said: > > > Just for the record, I see this in /sys: > > > > > > % cat /sys/bus/pnp/devices/00:0e/id > > > BCM0102 > > > PNP0c31 > > > > What's in /sys/bus/pnp/devices/00:0e/resources? > > % cat /sys/bus/pnp/devices/00:0e/resources > state = active > io 0x378-0x37f > io 0x778-0x77b > irq 7 > dma 1 Scratch that. When I wrote the first note, I was at home, and the TPM chip did its PNP thing and became 00:0e. I failed to notice that in my reply, I was at work, and the printer port on the docking station became 00:0e and the TPM became 00:0f. % cat /sys/devices/pnp0/00:0f/id BCM0102 PNP0c31 % cat /sys/devices/pnp0/00:0f/resources state = active io 0xcb0-0xcbb mem 0xfed40000-0xfed44fff So there *isn't* an IRQ assigned. When I tried the patch you sent, I added a few debugging printk's, thusly: if (interrupts) chip->vendor.irq = irq; printk(KERN_DEBUG "in tis_init, interrupts=%d irq=%d\n",interrupts,irq); if (interrupts && !chip->vendor.irq) { chip->vendor.irq = ioread8(chip->vendor.iobase + TPM_INT_VECTOR(chip->vendor.locality)); printk(KERN_DEBUG "after ioread8, interrupts=%d irq=%d\n",interrupts,chip->vendor.irq); for (i = 3; i < 16 && chip->vendor.irq == 0; i++) { [ 1971.644193] in pnp_init, start=fed40000 len=5000 irq=-1 [ 1971.650907] tpm_tis 00:0f: 1.2 TPM (device-id 0x1001, rev-id 2) [ 1971.650923] in tis_init, interrupts=1 irq=-1 [ 1971.650929] tpm_tis 00:0f: Unable to request irq: -1 for use and it loads immediately. I thought that !chip->vendor.irq looked like a wrong test, because if the chip says '-1' meaning "no default assigned", and conversely, if the chip had a positive number, we should be *using* that IRQ if we can, rather than looping from 3 to 15 looking for one. So I tried it with (chip->vendor.irc < 0), and this happened: [ 2254.834377] in pnp_init, start=fed40000 len=5000 irq=-1 [ 2254.840422] tpm_tis 00:0f: 1.2 TPM (device-id 0x1001, rev-id 2) [ 2254.840438] in tis_init, interrupts=1 irq=-1 [ 2254.840443] after ioread8, interrupts=1 irq=15 [ 2254.840457] tpm0 (IRQ 15) handled a spurious interrupt [ 2256.839077] tpm_tis 00:0f: tpm_transmit: tpm_send: error -62 [ 2376.771347] tpm_tis 00:0f: tpm_transmit: tpm_send: error -62 Or am I wrong in thinking chip->vendor.irq == -1 means "Pick me an IRQ", but instead means "I don't do that IRQ thing"? If so, maybe what we need to be doing is something like: if (chip->vendor.irq == -1) interrupts = 0; and force the use of interrupts off and do polling only?
Attachment:
pgpXeTHSiorqi.pgp
Description: PGP signature
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: 2.6.23-rc1-mm1 - seems OK on Dell Latitude D820, except for tpm_tis
- From: Bjorn Helgaas <[email protected]>
- Re: 2.6.23-rc1-mm1 - seems OK on Dell Latitude D820, except for tpm_tis
- References:
- 2.6.23-rc1-mm1
- From: Andrew Morton <[email protected]>
- Re: 2.6.23-rc1-mm1 - seems OK on Dell Latitude D820, except for tpm_tis
- From: [email protected]
- Re: 2.6.23-rc1-mm1 - seems OK on Dell Latitude D820, except for tpm_tis
- From: [email protected]
- Re: 2.6.23-rc1-mm1 - seems OK on Dell Latitude D820, except for tpm_tis
- From: Bjorn Helgaas <[email protected]>
- Re: 2.6.23-rc1-mm1 - seems OK on Dell Latitude D820, except for tpm_tis
- From: [email protected]
- 2.6.23-rc1-mm1
- Prev by Date: [PATCH 48] include/asm-mips/thread_info.h: kmalloc + memset conversion to kzalloc
- Next by Date: [PATCH 49] drivers/mmc/core/mmc_ops.c: kmalloc + memset conversion to kzalloc
- Previous by thread: Re: 2.6.23-rc1-mm1 - seems OK on Dell Latitude D820, except for tpm_tis
- Next by thread: Re: 2.6.23-rc1-mm1 - seems OK on Dell Latitude D820, except for tpm_tis
- Index(es):
 |