Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 24 Jan 2017 14:01:24 +0200 | From | Jarkko Sakkinen <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] tpm_tis: use default timeout value if chip reports it as zero |
| |
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?
/Jarkko
| |