Re: [PATCH 3/5] tpm_tis_spi: Check correct byte for wait state indicator

2017-02-24 Thread Jarkko Sakkinen
On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 04:08:24PM +, Peter Huewe wrote: > Wait states are signaled in the last byte received from the TPM in > response to the header, not the first byte. Check rx_buf[3] instead of > rx_buf[0]. > > Cc: > Fixes: 0edbfea537d1 ("tpm/tpm_tis_spi: Add

Re: [PATCH 3/5] tpm_tis_spi: Check correct byte for wait state indicator

2017-02-24 Thread Jarkko Sakkinen
On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 04:08:24PM +, Peter Huewe wrote: > Wait states are signaled in the last byte received from the TPM in > response to the header, not the first byte. Check rx_buf[3] instead of > rx_buf[0]. > > Cc: > Fixes: 0edbfea537d1 ("tpm/tpm_tis_spi: Add support for spi phy") >

Re: [PATCH 3/5] tpm_tis_spi: Check correct byte for wait state indicator

2017-02-16 Thread Peter Huewe
Am 17. Februar 2017 06:09:30 MEZ schrieb Christophe Ricard : >That's is correct, this is a mistake on my side and never saw it :-(. > >I guess it was possibly leading to "waste" at least 1 wait state on >some >TPMs. Unfortunately the 1 for indicating end of

Re: [PATCH 3/5] tpm_tis_spi: Check correct byte for wait state indicator

2017-02-16 Thread Peter Huewe
Am 17. Februar 2017 06:09:30 MEZ schrieb Christophe Ricard : >That's is correct, this is a mistake on my side and never saw it :-(. > >I guess it was possibly leading to "waste" at least 1 wait state on >some >TPMs. Unfortunately the 1 for indicating end of waitstates does only appear once so

Re: [PATCH 3/5] tpm_tis_spi: Check correct byte for wait state indicator

2017-02-16 Thread Christophe Ricard
That's is correct, this is a mistake on my side and never saw it :-(. I guess it was possibly leading to "waste" at least 1 wait state on some TPMs. Wouldn't it be better to merge that with #1 and update the comment consequently? On 16/02/2017 08:08, Peter Huewe wrote: Wait states are

Re: [PATCH 3/5] tpm_tis_spi: Check correct byte for wait state indicator

2017-02-16 Thread Christophe Ricard
That's is correct, this is a mistake on my side and never saw it :-(. I guess it was possibly leading to "waste" at least 1 wait state on some TPMs. Wouldn't it be better to merge that with #1 and update the comment consequently? On 16/02/2017 08:08, Peter Huewe wrote: Wait states are

[PATCH 3/5] tpm_tis_spi: Check correct byte for wait state indicator

2017-02-16 Thread Peter Huewe
Wait states are signaled in the last byte received from the TPM in response to the header, not the first byte. Check rx_buf[3] instead of rx_buf[0]. Cc: Fixes: 0edbfea537d1 ("tpm/tpm_tis_spi: Add support for spi phy") Signed-off-by: Alexander Steffen

[PATCH 3/5] tpm_tis_spi: Check correct byte for wait state indicator

2017-02-16 Thread Peter Huewe
Wait states are signaled in the last byte received from the TPM in response to the header, not the first byte. Check rx_buf[3] instead of rx_buf[0]. Cc: Fixes: 0edbfea537d1 ("tpm/tpm_tis_spi: Add support for spi phy") Signed-off-by: Alexander Steffen Signed-off-by: Peter Huewe ---