[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170610110656.hucthdwxfv3s6zz2@intel.com>
Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2017 14:06:56 +0300
From: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>
To: Jason Gunthorpe <jgunthorpe@...idianresearch.com>
Cc: Alan Cox <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
"Shaikh, Azhar" <azhar.shaikh@...el.com>,
"tpmdd-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net"
<tpmdd-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org"
<linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] tpm: Enable CLKRUN protocol for Braswell systems
On Thu, Jun 08, 2017 at 12:39:20PM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 08, 2017 at 07:22:59PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> > > > > + outb(0x80, 0xCC);
> > > > > +
> > > > > + /* Make sure the above write is completed */
> > > > > + wmb();
> > > >
> > > > Why the wmb(). It doesn't do what the comment says! Also this code is x86
> > > > specific
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > Memory barrier to enforce the order so that the outb() is
> > > completed, which ensures that the LPC clocks are running before
> > > sending any TPM command.
> >
> > wmb() doesn't do that. It merely ensures that the write has been posted
> > to the fabric. If as I suspect your LPC bus implements outb() as a
> > non-posted write you don't need the wmb().
>
> I think the point here is to bootstrap the sleeping LPC bus clock
> before a TPM command is issued, presumably because the auto-wakeup circuit
> is busted or something.
>
> For that purpose all that should be required is strong ordering of the
> outb relative to the other TPM commands at the LPC interface FIFO. I
> also think the wmb is not needed because outb is already defined to be
> strongly in order with respect to writel/readl ?
>
> Jason
writel AFAIK guarantees by itself strong RW ordering.
/Jarkko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists