From: Michal Suchánek
> Sent: 02 February 2017 11:30
...
> The word is marked correctly as __be64 in that patch because count and
> handle are swapped to BE when saved to it and the whole word is then
> swapped again when loaded. If you just load ((u64)IBMVTPM_VALID_CMD <<
> 56 | ((u64)VTPM_TPM_COM
On Wed, 1 Feb 2017 23:40:33 -0500
Vicky wrote:
> > On Jan 26, 2017, at 5:58 PM, Ashley Lai
> > wrote:
> >
> > Adding Vicky from IBM.
> >
> >
> > On 01/26/2017 04:05 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> >> On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 09:22:48PM +0100, Michal Such??nek wrote:
> >>
> >>> This is repeat
Vicky writes:
>> On Jan 26, 2017, at 5:58 PM, Ashley Lai wrote:
>>
>> Adding Vicky from IBM.
>>
>>
>> On 01/26/2017 04:05 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 09:22:48PM +0100, Michal Such??nek wrote:
>>>
This is repeated a few times in the driver so I added memset to
> On Jan 26, 2017, at 5:58 PM, Ashley Lai wrote:
>
> Adding Vicky from IBM.
>
>
> On 01/26/2017 04:05 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 09:22:48PM +0100, Michal Such??nek wrote:
>>
>>> This is repeated a few times in the driver so I added memset to quiet
>>> gcc and make b
Tyrel Datwyler writes:
> On 01/29/2017 08:32 PM, Michael Ellerman wrote:
>> Tyrel Datwyler writes:
>>>
>>> Byte | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7
>>> ---
>>> Word0 | Valid | Type | Length|
On 01/29/2017 08:32 PM, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> Tyrel Datwyler writes:
>
>> On 01/27/2017 01:03 AM, Michal Suchanek wrote:
>>> On 27 January 2017 at 02:50, Benjamin Herrenschmidt
>>> wrote:
On Thu, 2017-01-26 at 17:42 -0800, Tyrel Datwyler wrote:
> On 01/26/2017 12:22 PM, Michal Suchá
From: Tyrel Datwyler
> Sent: 27 January 2017 18:03
> On 01/26/2017 05:50 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> > On Thu, 2017-01-26 at 17:42 -0800, Tyrel Datwyler wrote:
> >> On 01/26/2017 12:22 PM, Michal Suchnek wrote:
> >>> Hello,
> >>>
> >>> building ibmvtpm I noticed gcc warning complaining that
Tyrel Datwyler writes:
> On 01/27/2017 01:03 AM, Michal Suchanek wrote:
>> On 27 January 2017 at 02:50, Benjamin Herrenschmidt
>> wrote:
>>> On Thu, 2017-01-26 at 17:42 -0800, Tyrel Datwyler wrote:
On 01/26/2017 12:22 PM, Michal Suchánek wrote:
> Hello,
>
> building ibmvtpm I no
On Fri, 2017-01-27 at 12:32 -0800, Tyrel Datwyler wrote:
> Its possible being the end of the week I'm just a little dense, but
> wouldn't be64_to_cpu() imply that we are byte-swapping something that is
> already, or supposedly already, in BE format to cpu endianness? Which on
> a BE cpu I would exp
On 01/27/2017 01:03 AM, Michal Suchanek wrote:
> On 27 January 2017 at 02:50, Benjamin Herrenschmidt
> wrote:
>> On Thu, 2017-01-26 at 17:42 -0800, Tyrel Datwyler wrote:
>>> On 01/26/2017 12:22 PM, Michal Suchánek wrote:
Hello,
building ibmvtpm I noticed gcc warning complaining that
Hello,
On 2017-01-27 21:32, Tyrel Datwyler wrote:
On 01/27/2017 11:58 AM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
On Fri, 2017-01-27 at 10:02 -0800, Tyrel Datwyler wrote:
The problem is that we are packing an in-memory structure into 2
registers and it's expected that this structure is laid out in the
r
On 01/27/2017 11:58 AM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Fri, 2017-01-27 at 10:02 -0800, Tyrel Datwyler wrote:
>>> The problem is that we are packing an in-memory structure into 2
>>> registers and it's expected that this structure is laid out in the
>>> registers as if it had been loaded by a BE
On Fri, 2017-01-27 at 10:02 -0800, Tyrel Datwyler wrote:
> > The problem is that we are packing an in-memory structure into 2
> > registers and it's expected that this structure is laid out in the
> > registers as if it had been loaded by a BE CPU.
>
> This is only the case if the cpu is BE. If th
On 01/26/2017 05:50 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Thu, 2017-01-26 at 17:42 -0800, Tyrel Datwyler wrote:
>> On 01/26/2017 12:22 PM, Michal Suchánek wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> building ibmvtpm I noticed gcc warning complaining that second word
>>> of
>>> struct ibmvtpm_crq in tpm_ibmvtpm_susp
From: Michal Suchánek
> building ibmvtpm I noticed gcc warning complaining that second word of
> struct ibmvtpm_crq in tpm_ibmvtpm_suspend is uninitialized.
>
> The structure is defined as
>
> struct ibmvtpm_crq {
> u8 valid;
> u8 msg;
> __be16 len;
> __be32 data;
On 27 January 2017 at 02:50, Benjamin Herrenschmidt
wrote:
> On Thu, 2017-01-26 at 17:42 -0800, Tyrel Datwyler wrote:
>> On 01/26/2017 12:22 PM, Michal Suchánek wrote:
>> > Hello,
>> >
>> > building ibmvtpm I noticed gcc warning complaining that second word
>> > of
>> > struct ibmvtpm_crq in tpm_i
On Thu, 2017-01-26 at 17:42 -0800, Tyrel Datwyler wrote:
> On 01/26/2017 12:22 PM, Michal Suchánek wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > building ibmvtpm I noticed gcc warning complaining that second word
> > of
> > struct ibmvtpm_crq in tpm_ibmvtpm_suspend is uninitialized.
> >
> > The structure is defined
On 01/26/2017 12:22 PM, Michal Suchánek wrote:
> Hello,
>
> building ibmvtpm I noticed gcc warning complaining that second word of
> struct ibmvtpm_crq in tpm_ibmvtpm_suspend is uninitialized.
>
> The structure is defined as
>
> struct ibmvtpm_crq {
> u8 valid;
> u8 msg;
>
Adding Vicky from IBM.
On 01/26/2017 04:05 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 09:22:48PM +0100, Michal Such??nek wrote:
This is repeated a few times in the driver so I added memset to quiet
gcc and make behavior deterministic in case the unused fields get some
meaning in the f
On 26 January 2017 at 23:05, Jason Gunthorpe
wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 09:22:48PM +0100, Michal Such??nek wrote:
>
>> This is repeated a few times in the driver so I added memset to quiet
>> gcc and make behavior deterministic in case the unused fields get some
>> meaning in the future.
>
>
On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 09:22:48PM +0100, Michal Such??nek wrote:
> This is repeated a few times in the driver so I added memset to quiet
> gcc and make behavior deterministic in case the unused fields get some
> meaning in the future.
Yep, reserved certainly needs to be zeroed.. Can you send a p
21 matches
Mail list logo
