Re: [PATCH] tpm: remove extraneous #ifdef

[Jarkko Sakkinen]

On Fri, Sep 18, 2026 at 04:01:57AM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 18, 2026 at 03:58:11AM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 15, 2026 at 10:12:58PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > > From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx>
> > > 
> > > Changing to DEFINE_SIMPLE_DEV_PM_OPS() broke here because the
> > > tpm_inf_resume() function is hidden in an #ifdef:
> > > 
> > > drivers/char/tpm/tpm_infineon.c:615:61: error: 'tpm_inf_resume' undeclared here (not in a function); did you mean 'tpm_pm_resume'?
> > >   615 | static DEFINE_SIMPLE_DEV_PM_OPS(tpm_inf_pm, tpm_pm_suspend, tpm_inf_resume);
> > >       |                                                             ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > 
> > > Remove the #ifdef check.
> > > 
> > > Fixes: 2249200ee420 ("tpm: use DEFINE_SIMPLE_DEV_PM_OPS and pm_sleep_ptr()")
> > > Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > >  drivers/char/tpm/tpm_infineon.c | 3 +--
> > >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_infineon.c b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_infineon.c
> > > index 84a0d3e5f679..d6edd2ca39a5 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_infineon.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_infineon.c
> > > @@ -594,7 +594,6 @@ static void tpm_inf_pnp_remove(struct pnp_dev *dev)
> > >  	}
> > >  }
> > >  
> > > -#ifdef CONFIG_PM_SLEEP
> > >  static int tpm_inf_resume(struct device *dev)
> > >  {
> > >  	/* Re-configure TPM after suspending */
> > > @@ -611,7 +610,7 @@ static int tpm_inf_resume(struct device *dev)
> > >  	tpm_data_out(RESET_LP_IRQC_DISABLE, CMD);
> > >  	return tpm_pm_resume(dev);
> > >  }
> > > -#endif
> > > +
> > >  static DEFINE_SIMPLE_DEV_PM_OPS(tpm_inf_pm, tpm_pm_suspend, tpm_inf_resume);
> > >  
> > >  static struct pnp_driver tpm_inf_pnp_driver = {
> > > -- 
> > > 2.53.0
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> > Reviewed-by: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@xxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> I pushed this to for-next-tpm, which mirrors to linux-next.
> 
> However, since this is -next only bug, I guess I should squash these to
> the original commit?
> 
> Just sanity checking before taking action :-)

My suggestion would be to amend Co-authored-by to the original commit
message as two bug fixes is significant amount of effort to make the
change right.

BR, Jarkko