On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 11:36:25AM -0400, Stephen Douthit wrote:
> On 03/13/2018 10:40 AM, Stefan Berger wrote:
> > I think that should be a first test, maybe also for CRB.
>
> I don't think we can make that the first test. If we don't wait for
> tpmRegValidSts (qualified by some known zero bit),
On 03/13/2018 11:36 AM, Stephen Douthit wrote:
On 03/13/2018 10:40 AM, Stefan Berger wrote:
On 03/13/2018 10:15 AM, Stephen Douthit wrote:
When tis_probe() returns '1', it means the interface was detected.
If all registers return 0x in the no-TPM case we should
return a '0' from tis_pr
On 03/13/2018 10:40 AM, Stefan Berger wrote:
On 03/13/2018 10:15 AM, Stephen Douthit wrote:
When tis_probe() returns '1', it means the interface was detected.
If all registers return 0x in the no-TPM case we should return a '0'
from tis_probe since rc was set to 0 from tis_wait_access()
On 03/13/2018 10:40 AM, Stefan Berger wrote:
On 03/13/2018 10:15 AM, Stephen Douthit wrote:
When tis_probe() returns '1', it means the interface was detected.
If all registers return 0x in the no-TPM case we should return a '0'
from tis_probe since rc was set to 0 from tis_wait_access()
On 03/13/2018 10:15 AM, Stephen Douthit wrote:
When tis_probe() returns '1', it means the interface was detected.
If all registers return 0x in the no-TPM case we should
return a '0' from tis_probe since rc was set to 0 from
tis_wait_access() and we will not get into the ifaceid test ca
On 03/13/2018 07:39 AM, Stefan Berger wrote:
On 03/13/2018 07:31 AM, Stefan Berger wrote:
On 03/12/2018 06:11 PM, Kevin O'Connor wrote:
On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 01:38:52PM -0400, Stephen Douthit wrote:
I've got a board modded so I can jumper the TPM in and out.
What I found in the no-TPM case
When tis_probe() returns '1', it means the interface was detected.
If all registers return 0x in the no-TPM case we should return a '0'
from tis_probe since rc was set to 0 from tis_wait_access() and we will not get
into the ifaceid test case. If they return 0 then we shouldn't get past
On 03/13/2018 07:31 AM, Stefan Berger wrote:
On 03/12/2018 06:11 PM, Kevin O'Connor wrote:
On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 01:38:52PM -0400, Stephen Douthit wrote:
I've got a board modded so I can jumper the TPM in and out.
What I found in the no-TPM case was that both tis_probe() and
crb_probe() inco
On 03/12/2018 06:11 PM, Kevin O'Connor wrote:
On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 01:38:52PM -0400, Stephen Douthit wrote:
I've got a board modded so I can jumper the TPM in and out.
What I found in the no-TPM case was that both tis_probe() and
crb_probe() incorrectly return 1 for device present if all Fs
