From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751964AbdAYUJs (ORCPT ); Wed, 25 Jan 2017 15:09:48 -0500 Received: from mga06.intel.com ([134.134.136.31]:42962 "EHLO mga06.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751718AbdAYUJr (ORCPT ); Wed, 25 Jan 2017 15:09:47 -0500 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.33,285,1477983600"; d="scan'208";a="813303737" Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2017 22:09:42 +0200 From: Jarkko Sakkinen To: "Maciej S. Szmigiero" Cc: tpmdd-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel , Peter Huewe , Marcel Selhorst , Christophe Ricard , Jason Gunthorpe Subject: Re: [PATCH] tpm_tis: use default timeout value if chip reports it as zero Message-ID: <20170125200942.d3iumrnpfautlmh7@intel.com> References: <20170116094202.bng7zfznepw7s5la@intel.com> <20170116134612.uuzbb6xi7pw7czyo@intel.com> <20170116135539.4qtrylwt3m2yfapx@intel.com> <17fd82a8-d6fd-d4ec-0965-3ebba25fca0e@maciej.szmigiero.name> <20170116163927.od5coufxvctgknot@intel.com> <8f971cbc-a4f6-22c9-fd6d-982bf4691530@maciej.szmigiero.name> <20170124120124.ycq2maroibtesjhu@intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Organization: Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - Westendinkatu 7, 02160 Espoo User-Agent: Mutt/1.6.2-neo (2016-08-21) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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 > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Fixes: 1107d065fdf1 ("tpm_tis: Introduce intermediate layer for TPM access") > >>>>>>>> Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Reviewed-by: Jarkko Sakkinen > >>>>>> > >>>>>> 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. /Jarkko