From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753168AbdHWCZz (ORCPT ); Tue, 22 Aug 2017 22:25:55 -0400 Received: from quartz.orcorp.ca ([184.70.90.242]:58755 "EHLO quartz.orcorp.ca" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752880AbdHWCZy (ORCPT ); Tue, 22 Aug 2017 22:25:54 -0400 Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2017 20:25:26 -0600 From: Jason Gunthorpe To: Jiandi An Cc: Jarkko Sakkinen , peterhuewe@gmx.de, tpmdd@selhorst.net, tpmdd-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] tpm/tpm_crb: Access locality for non-ACPI and non-SMC start method Message-ID: <20170823022526.GA4844@obsidianresearch.com> References: <1503029736-591-1-git-send-email-anjiandi@codeaurora.org> <20170822173956.zpqe4scdnv7plrhj@linux.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 04:28:54PM -0500, Jiandi An wrote: > I'm sorry perhaps I didn't fully understand the workaround specific to Intel > PPT. In previous patch thread, you mentioned the following where > a platform could report to require start method 2 (ACPI start) which is > sm = ACPI_TPM2_START_METHOD, and actually requires start method 8, which > is sm = ACPI_TPM2_COMMAND_BUFFER_WITH_START_METHOD. I'm also not sure. To be clear, my desire to see a test that triggers only for the Intel chips with the problem, and is written in a way that matches exactly the ACPI data from the broken chip - so things like !CRB are not what I want to see.. In that light the example I gave was probably not well thought out, but I also do not understand the exact conditions needed for the Intel work around either. Hopefully Jarkko can clarify. Jason