[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200622215922.GE22727@linux.intel.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2020 00:59:22 +0300
From: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>
To: amirmizi6@...il.com
Cc: Eyal.Cohen@...oton.com, oshrialkoby85@...il.com,
alexander.steffen@...ineon.com, robh+dt@...nel.org,
peterhuewe@....de, christophe-h.richard@...com, jgg@...pe.ca,
arnd@...db.de, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org, oshri.alkoby@...oton.com,
tmaimon77@...il.com, gcwilson@...ibm.com, kgoldman@...ibm.com,
Dan.Morav@...oton.com, oren.tanami@...oton.com,
shmulik.hager@...oton.com, amir.mizinski@...oton.com,
Christophe Ricard <christophe-h.ricard@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v11 3/8] tpm: tpm_tis: Add retry in case of protocol
failure or data integrity (on I2C only) failure.
On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 04:43:38PM +0300, amirmizi6@...il.com wrote:
> From: Amir Mizinski <amirmizi6@...il.com>
>
> Added a retry mechanism on any protocol error. In addition, a retry is
> added in case of a data integrity issue in the I2C bus protocol. The check
> is performed after sending a command to the TPM and after receiving a
> response from the TPM.
No chance to merge this without reasoning why on any protocol error we
should retry. It's not reasoned here. Unfotunately, with this premise I
cannot merge this.
/Jarkko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists