On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 10:37:31PM +0100, Maciej S. Szmigiero wrote: > 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.
Please go with that but add also FW_BUG print just to be aware of chips that report zero values. /Jarkko