On Tue, Feb 02, 2021 at 05:33:17PM +0200, jarkko@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> From: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> An unexpected status from TPM chip is not irrecovable failure of the
> kernel. It's only undesirable situation. Thus, change the WARN_ONCE
> instance inside tpm_tis_status() to pr_warn_once().
>
> In addition: print the status in the log message because it is actually
> useful information lacking from the existing log message.
>
> Suggested-by: Guenter Roeck <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Fixes: 6f4f57f0b909 ("tpm: ibmvtpm: fix error return code in tpm_ibmvtpm_probe()")
> Signed-off-by: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_core.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_core.c b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_core.c
> index 431919d5f48a..21f67c6366cb 100644
> --- a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_core.c
> +++ b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_core.c
> @@ -202,7 +202,7 @@ static u8 tpm_tis_status(struct tpm_chip *chip)
> * acquired. Usually because tpm_try_get_ops() hasn't
> * been called before doing a TPM operation.
> */
> - WARN_ONCE(1, "TPM returned invalid status\n");
> + pr_warn_once("TPM returned invalid status: 0x%x\n", status);
> return 0;
> }
Actually in this case I don't understand why _once, especially based on
the comment. Would ratelimited not be better? So we can see if it
happens repeatedly? Even better would be if we could see when it next
gave a valid status after an invalid one.
