On Thu, Apr 07, 2022 at 12:21:44PM +0200, Paul Menzel wrote:
> Dear Jes,
>
>
> Thank you for your patch.
>
> Am 05.04.22 um 19:37 schrieb Jes B. Klinke:
> > Accept one additional numerical value of DID:VID for next generation
> > Google TPM, to be used in future Chromebooks.
>
> Maybe extend:
>
> … Google TPM with new firmware …
>
> The TPM with the new firmware has the code name TI50, and going to use the
> same interfaces.
>
> > This patch touches more lines than may seem necessary, as a result of
> > the need to move the error case to sit after the two recognized cases.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Jes B. Klinke <jbk@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >
> > drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_i2c_cr50.c | 21 +++++++++++++--------
> > 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_i2c_cr50.c b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_i2c_cr50.c
> > index f6c0affbb4567..bf54ebd6724b0 100644
> > --- a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_i2c_cr50.c
> > +++ b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_i2c_cr50.c
> > @@ -31,6 +31,7 @@
> > #define TPM_CR50_TIMEOUT_SHORT_MS 2 /* Short timeout during transactions */
> > #define TPM_CR50_TIMEOUT_NOIRQ_MS 20 /* Timeout for TPM ready without IRQ */
> > #define TPM_CR50_I2C_DID_VID 0x00281ae0L /* Device and vendor ID reg value */
> > +#define TPM_TI50_I2C_DID_VID 0x504a6666L /* Device and vendor ID reg value */
> > #define TPM_CR50_I2C_MAX_RETRIES 3 /* Max retries due to I2C errors */
> > #define TPM_CR50_I2C_RETRY_DELAY_LO 55 /* Min usecs between retries on I2C */
> > #define TPM_CR50_I2C_RETRY_DELAY_HI 65 /* Max usecs between retries on I2C */
> > @@ -742,16 +743,20 @@ static int tpm_cr50_i2c_probe(struct i2c_client *client)
> > }
> > vendor = le32_to_cpup((__le32 *)buf);
> > - if (vendor != TPM_CR50_I2C_DID_VID) {
> > - dev_err(dev, "Vendor ID did not match! ID was %08x\n", vendor);
> > - tpm_cr50_release_locality(chip, true);
> > - return -ENODEV;
> > + if (vendor == TPM_CR50_I2C_DID_VID) {
> > + dev_info(dev, "cr50 TPM 2.0 (i2c 0x%02x irq %d id 0x%x)\n",
> > + client->addr, client->irq, vendor >> 16);
> > + return tpm_chip_register(chip);
> > + }
> > + if (vendor == TPM_TI50_I2C_DID_VID) {
> > + dev_info(dev, "ti50 TPM 2.0 (i2c 0x%02x irq %d id 0x%x)\n",
> > + client->addr, client->irq, vendor >> 16);
> > + return tpm_chip_register(chip);
> > }
>
> Both branches are quite similar. Can a ternary operator be used?
>
> dev_info(dev, "%s TPM 2.0 (i2c 0x%02x irq %d id 0x%x)\n",
> (vendor == TPM_CR50_I2C_DID_VID) ? "cr50" : "ti50", client->addr,
> client->irq, vendor >> 16);
> return tpm_chip_register(chip);
>
> and the original flow be left? (A separate variable can also be added.)
>
> > - dev_info(dev, "cr50 TPM 2.0 (i2c 0x%02x irq %d id 0x%x)\n",
> > - client->addr, client->irq, vendor >> 16);
> > -
> > - return tpm_chip_register(chip);
> > + dev_err(dev, "Vendor ID did not match! ID was %08x\n", vendor);
> > + tpm_cr50_release_locality(chip, true);
> > + return -ENODEV;
> > }
> > /**
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Paul
OK, these are legit suggestions. Paul, can you do these changes and add my
reviewed-by for the +1 version?
BR, Jarkko
