Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 26 Jan 2017 00:58:57 +0200 | From | Jarkko Sakkinen <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] tpm_tis: use default timeout value if chip reports it as zero |
| |
On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 10:26:44PM +0100, Maciej S. Szmigiero wrote: > 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
Sorrya about that (too much multitasking lately). I had to do a bit of manual work to get it there. Now it should be good.
/Jarkko
| |