On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 04:08:25PM +, Peter Huewe wrote:
> Limiting transfers to MAX_SPI_FRAMESIZE was not expected by the upper
> layers, as tpm_tis has no such limitation. Add a loop to hide that
> limitation.
>
> Cc:
> Fixes: 0edbfea537d1 ("tpm/tpm_tis_spi: Add
On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 04:08:25PM +, Peter Huewe wrote:
> Limiting transfers to MAX_SPI_FRAMESIZE was not expected by the upper
> layers, as tpm_tis has no such limitation. Add a loop to hide that
> limitation.
>
> Cc:
> Fixes: 0edbfea537d1 ("tpm/tpm_tis_spi: Add support for spi phy")
>
On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 04:08:25PM +, Peter Huewe wrote:
> Limiting transfers to MAX_SPI_FRAMESIZE was not expected by the upper
> layers, as tpm_tis has no such limitation. Add a loop to hide that
> limitation.
>
> Cc:
> Fixes: 0edbfea537d1 ("tpm/tpm_tis_spi: Add
On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 04:08:25PM +, Peter Huewe wrote:
> Limiting transfers to MAX_SPI_FRAMESIZE was not expected by the upper
> layers, as tpm_tis has no such limitation. Add a loop to hide that
> limitation.
>
> Cc:
> Fixes: 0edbfea537d1 ("tpm/tpm_tis_spi: Add support for spi phy")
>
Am 17. Februar 2017 06:11:53 MEZ schrieb Christophe Ricard
:
>I am not sure i understand here, are you considering there could be
>burstcount > 64 with "TCG" TPM ?
>
With the current upstream version, any command larger with a response of more
than 64 byte is
Am 17. Februar 2017 06:11:53 MEZ schrieb Christophe Ricard
:
>I am not sure i understand here, are you considering there could be
>burstcount > 64 with "TCG" TPM ?
>
With the current upstream version, any command larger with a response of more
than 64 byte is broken, since the splitting loop
I am not sure i understand here, are you considering there could be
burstcount > 64 with "TCG" TPM ?
Or is this because of TIS vs PTP differences ?
To be honest, this is a little behind me now :-)
On 16/02/2017 08:08, Peter Huewe wrote:
Limiting transfers to MAX_SPI_FRAMESIZE was not
I am not sure i understand here, are you considering there could be
burstcount > 64 with "TCG" TPM ?
Or is this because of TIS vs PTP differences ?
To be honest, this is a little behind me now :-)
On 16/02/2017 08:08, Peter Huewe wrote:
Limiting transfers to MAX_SPI_FRAMESIZE was not
Hi Peter,
[auto build test WARNING on char-misc/char-misc-testing]
[also build test WARNING on v4.10-rc8 next-20170216]
[if your patch is applied to the wrong git tree, please drop us a note to help
improve the system]
url:
Hi Peter,
[auto build test WARNING on char-misc/char-misc-testing]
[also build test WARNING on v4.10-rc8 next-20170216]
[if your patch is applied to the wrong git tree, please drop us a note to help
improve the system]
url:
Limiting transfers to MAX_SPI_FRAMESIZE was not expected by the upper
layers, as tpm_tis has no such limitation. Add a loop to hide that
limitation.
Cc:
Fixes: 0edbfea537d1 ("tpm/tpm_tis_spi: Add support for spi phy")
Signed-off-by: Alexander Steffen
Limiting transfers to MAX_SPI_FRAMESIZE was not expected by the upper
layers, as tpm_tis has no such limitation. Add a loop to hide that
limitation.
Cc:
Fixes: 0edbfea537d1 ("tpm/tpm_tis_spi: Add support for spi phy")
Signed-off-by: Alexander Steffen
Signed-off-by: Peter Huewe
---
12 matches
Mail list logo