On Sat, May 08, 2021 at 10:46:57AM +0800, 乱石 wrote:
> Hi,
>
> 在 2021/5/8 10:01, Jarkko Sakkinen 写道:
> > On Fri, May 07, 2021 at 10:52:55PM +0800, Liguang Zhang wrote:
> > > In DSDT table, TPM _CID was SMO0768, and no _HID definition. After a
> > > kernel upgrade from 4.19 to 5.10, TPM probe function was changed which
> > > causes device probe fails. In order to make newer kernel to be
> > > compatible with the older acpi definition, it would be best set default
> > > probe function.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Liguang Zhang <zhangliguang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_spi_main.c | 12 ++++++++----
> > > 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_spi_main.c b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_spi_main.c
> > > index 3856f6ebcb34..da632a582621 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_spi_main.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_spi_main.c
> > > @@ -240,10 +240,14 @@ static int tpm_tis_spi_driver_probe(struct spi_device *spi)
> > > tpm_tis_spi_probe_func probe_func;
> > > probe_func = of_device_get_match_data(&spi->dev);
> > > - if (!probe_func && spi_dev_id)
> > > - probe_func = (tpm_tis_spi_probe_func)spi_dev_id->driver_data;
> > > - if (!probe_func)
> > > - return -ENODEV;
> > > + if (!probe_func) {
> > > + if (spi_dev_id) {
> > > + probe_func = (tpm_tis_spi_probe_func)spi_dev_id->driver_data;
> > > + if (!probe_func)
> > > + return -ENODEV;
> > Perhaps also hear fallback to tpm_tis_spi_probe?
>
>
> Yes, I do not think of a good way. Do you have any suggestions?
So, I just think that when you have this part:
if (!probe_func) {
if (spi_dev_id) {
probe_func = (tpm_tis_spi_probe_func)spi_dev_id->driver_data;
if (!probe_func)
return -ENODEV;
Why in here would not you also want to fallback to tpm_tis_spi_probe?
/Jarkko
