Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] tpm_tis: use default timeout value if chip reports it as zero | From | "Maciej S. Szmigiero" <> | Date | Thu, 26 Jan 2017 00:28:22 +0100 |
| |
On 25.01.2017 23:58, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > 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.
It looks right now, thanks.
> /Jarkko
Maciej
| |