Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1565180 > unrolled thread

Re: [PATCH] tpm_tis: use default timeout value if chip reports it as zero

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: [PATCH] tpm_tis: use default timeout value if chip reports it as  zero "Maciej S. Szmigiero" <mail@maciej.szmigiero.name> - 2017-01-23 18:30 +0100
    Re: [PATCH] tpm_tis: use default timeout value if chip reports it as  zero Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com> - 2017-01-24 13:10 +0100
      Re: [PATCH] tpm_tis: use default timeout value if chip reports it as  zero "Maciej S. Szmigiero" <mail@maciej.szmigiero.name> - 2017-01-24 14:50 +0100
        Re: [PATCH] tpm_tis: use default timeout value if chip reports it as  zero Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com> - 2017-01-25 21:10 +0100
          Re: [PATCH] tpm_tis: use default timeout value if chip reports it as  zero "Maciej S. Szmigiero" <mail@maciej.szmigiero.name> - 2017-01-25 22:30 +0100
            Re: [PATCH] tpm_tis: use default timeout value if chip reports it as  zero Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com> - 2017-01-26 00:00 +0100
              Re: [PATCH] tpm_tis: use default timeout value if chip reports it as  zero "Maciej S. Szmigiero" <mail@maciej.szmigiero.name> - 2017-01-26 00:30 +0100

#1565180 — Re: [PATCH] tpm_tis: use default timeout value if chip reports it as zero

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 <mail@maciej.szmigiero.name>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Fixes: 1107d065fdf1 ("tpm_tis: Introduce intermediate layer for TPM access")
>>>>>> Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
>>>>>
>>>>> Reviewed-by: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>
>>>>
>>>> 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.

> /Jarkkok

Maciej

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1565803

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 <mail@maciej.szmigiero.name>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Fixes: 1107d065fdf1 ("tpm_tis: Introduce intermediate layer for TPM access")
> >>>>>> Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Reviewed-by: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>
> >>>>
> >>>> 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?

/Jarkko

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1565860

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 <mail@maciej.szmigiero.name>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Fixes: 1107d065fdf1 ("tpm_tis: Introduce intermediate layer for TPM access")
>>>>>>>> Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Reviewed-by: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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.

> /Jarkko

Maciej

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1566899

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 <mail@maciej.szmigiero.name>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Fixes: 1107d065fdf1 ("tpm_tis: Introduce intermediate layer for TPM access")
> >>>>>>>> Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Reviewed-by: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1566968

On 25.01.2017 21:09, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> 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 <mail@maciej.szmigiero.name>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Fixes: 1107d065fdf1 ("tpm_tis: Introduce intermediate layer for TPM access")
>>>>>>>>>> Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Reviewed-by: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 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.

Almost there: it looks like the last hunk of the patch is missing from
the commit.

> /Jarkko

Maciej

 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1567033

On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 10:26:44PM +0100, Maciej S. Szmigiero wrote:
> On 25.01.2017 21:09, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > 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 <mail@maciej.szmigiero.name>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Fixes: 1107d065fdf1 ("tpm_tis: Introduce intermediate layer for TPM access")
> >>>>>>>>>> Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Reviewed-by: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> 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.
> 
> Almost there: it looks like the last hunk of the patch is missing from
> the commit.
> 
> > /Jarkko
> 
> Maciej

Sorrya about that (too much multitasking lately). I had to do a bit of
manual work to get it there. Now it should be good.

/Jarkko

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1567038

On 25.01.2017 23:58, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 10:26:44PM +0100, Maciej S. Szmigiero wrote:
>> On 25.01.2017 21:09, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
>>> 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 <mail@maciej.szmigiero.name>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Fixes: 1107d065fdf1 ("tpm_tis: Introduce intermediate layer for TPM access")
>>>>>>>>>>>> Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Reviewed-by: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>
>> Almost there: it looks like the last hunk of the patch is missing from
>> the commit.
>>
>>> /Jarkko
>>
>> Maciej
> 
> Sorrya about that (too much multitasking lately). I had to do a bit of
> manual work to get it there. Now it should be good.

It looks right now, thanks.

> /Jarkko

Maciej

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web