Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] tpm_tis: use default timeout value if chip reports it as zero | From | "Maciej S. Szmigiero" <> | Date | Wed, 25 Jan 2017 22:26:44 +0100 |
| |
On 25.01.2017 21:09, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 02:42:29PM +0100, Maciej S. Szmigiero wrote: >> On 24.01.2017 13:01, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: >>> On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 06:23:55PM +0100, Maciej S. Szmigiero wrote: >>>> On 16.01.2017 17:39, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: >>>>> On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 03:58:26PM +0100, Maciej S. Szmigiero wrote: >>>>>> On 16.01.2017 14:55, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: >>>>>>> On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 03:46:12PM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: >>>>>>>> On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 11:42:02AM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 10:37:00PM +0100, Maciej S. Szmigiero wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Since commit 1107d065fdf1 ("tpm_tis: Introduce intermediate layer for TPM >>>>>>>>>> access") Atmel 3203 TPM on ThinkPad X61S (TPM firmware version 13.9) no >>>>>>>>>> longer works. >>>>>>>>>> The initialization proceeds fine until we get and start using chip-reported >>>>>>>>>> timeouts - and the chip reports C and D timeouts of zero. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> It turns out that until commit 8e54caf407b98e ("tpm: Provide a generic >>>>>>>>>> means to override the chip returned timeouts") we had actually let default >>>>>>>>>> timeout values remain in this case, so let's bring back this behavior to >>>>>>>>>> make chips like Atmel 3203 work again. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Use a common code that was introduced by that commit so a warning is >>>>>>>>>> printed in this case and /sys/class/tpm/tpm*/timeouts correctly says the >>>>>>>>>> timeouts aren't chip-original. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Maciej S. Szmigiero <mail@maciej.szmigiero.name> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Fixes: 1107d065fdf1 ("tpm_tis: Introduce intermediate layer for TPM access") >>>>>>>>>> Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Reviewed-by: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It's now applied to my master branch so if someone wants to >>>>>>>> test it, it should be fairly easy. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> And I decided to squash the rename commit to it. >>>>>> >>>>>> Wouldn't it be better to squash the rename commit into "fix iTPM probe via >>>>>> probe_itpm() function" patch (if it isn't too late), since they touch the >>>>>> same functionality? >>>>> >>>>> It can be renamed, modified and even dropped as long as it is in my >>>>> master branch and I haven't sent pull request to James Morris. >>>> >>>> I see that "fix iTPM probe via probe_itpm() function" patch isn't present >>>> in your pull request for 4.11. >>>> >>>> What I meant in previous message was that you squashed and "rename >>>> TPM_TIS_ITPM_POSSIBLE to TPM_TIS_ITPM_WORKAROUND" patch into "use default timeout >>>> value if chip reports it as zero" patch while it was logically connected with >>>> "fix iTPM probe via probe_itpm() function" patch instead (which now isn't present >>>> at all in the tree). >>>> Sorry if it wasn't 100% clear. >>> >>> I see. >>> >>> I'll probably send later on pull request with fixes for release content >>> I can include that commit into that pull request. Does that work for >>> you? >> >> Yes, it would be fine, thanks. > > It's now applied and pushed.
Almost there: it looks like the last hunk of the patch is missing from the commit.
> /Jarkko
Maciej
| |