On Tue, Feb 02, 2021 at 12:46:15PM -0400, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> 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
> > +++ 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);
>
> Use dev_warn_once since we have a chip->dev here
>
> Jason
Right obviously that one is best to be preferred. I'll do that. Thanks.
/Jarkko
