Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] tpm_tis: use default timeout value if chip reports it as zero | From | "Maciej S. Szmigiero" <> | Date | Mon, 23 Jan 2017 18:23:55 +0100 |
| |
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.
> /Jarkkok
Maciej
| |