On Fri, Jan 31, 2025 at 07:12:06PM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > On Fri Jan 31, 2025 at 3:02 PM EET, Michal Suchánek wrote: > > It looks like the timeout_b is used exclusively as the ready timeout *), > > with various sources of the value depending on chip type. > > > > Then increasing it should not cause any problem other than the kernel > > waiting longer when the TPM chip is really stuck. > > > > * There is one instance of use of timeout_b for TPM_STS_VALID in > > st33zp24_pm_resume. > > Possible for you to give a shot for patch and try it out for a while? > I'm fine with 2x, or even 4x in this case.
I will see what I can do. It will definitely take a while. How would you like to multiply it? At the sime the timeout_b is assigned, or at the time it's used? Any specific patch that you have in mind? Thanks Michal
