[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20f8645d-f3fd-550b-b830-d1e55b8f2d17@maciej.szmigiero.name>
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2017 22:37:31 +0100
From: "Maciej S. Szmigiero" <mail@...iej.szmigiero.name>
To: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Jason Gunthorpe <jgunthorpe@...idianresearch.com>,
tpmdd-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Peter Huewe <peterhuewe@....de>,
Marcel Selhorst <tpmdd@...horst.net>,
Christophe Ricard <christophe.ricard@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tpm_tis: override reported C and D timeouts for Atmel
3203
On 12.01.2017 21:20, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 09:09:33PM +0100, Maciej S. Szmigiero wrote:
>> Hi Jason,
>>
>> On 12.01.2017 19:42, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
(..)
>>> Can you also add a check for 0 timeouts in the core code and print a
>>> FW_BUG :\
>>
>> Hmm, I dug in history of tpm-interface.c and the code had actually rejected
>> zero timeouts until commit 8e54caf407b98e (this is the commit that
>> introduced the Atmel 3204 workaround) and let default timeout values remain
>> instead (it looks like they were exactly like these in above override at
>> that time).
>>
>> Did Atmel 3204 report wrong but non-zero timeouts?
>
> Wouldn't it make more sense to fix this by re-adding this fallback?
I think it would be a cleaner fix and also catch other problematic
devices (if there are any) without needing to add individual overrides.
> /Jarkko
Maciej
Powered by blists - more mailing lists