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 <m...@maciej.szmigiero.name> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Fixes: 1107d065fdf1 ("tpm_tis: Introduce intermediate layer for TPM > >>>>>>>> access") > >>>>>>>> Cc: sta...@vger.kernel.org > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Reviewed-by: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakki...@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