Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] tpm/tpm_tis: Disable interrupts for Framework Laptop Intel 12th gen

["Jarkko Sakkinen" <jarkko@kernel.org>]

On Fri Aug 11, 2023 at 9:47 PM EEST, Grundik wrote:
> On Fri, 2023-08-11 at 20:40 +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > On Fri Aug 11, 2023 at 8:22 PM EEST, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > > On Fri Aug 11, 2023 at 11:18 AM EEST, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> > > 
> > > 
> > > I see two long-standing options:
> > > 
> > > A. Move from deny list to allow list when considering using IRQs.
> > > This
> > >    can be supplemented with a kernel command-line parameter to
> > > enforce
> > >    IRQs and ignore the allow list (and IRQ storm detection provides
> > >    additional measure in case you try to enforce)
> > > B. Change deny list to match only vendors for the time being. This
> > > can
> > >    be supplemented with a allow list that is processed after the
> > > deny
> > >    list for models where IRQs are known to work.
> [...]
> > 
> > This is also super time consuming and takes the focus away from more
> > important matters (like most likely the AMD rng fix would have gone
> > smoother without these getting in the way all the time).
>
> Main problem of any list is maintaining of them. So, I think there
> should not be any black or white lists at all. Module should work with
> reasonable default (polling is the one, which lived without problems
> for years and years due to bug, as I understand), and probably a boot
> option to force IRQ. Maybe module should warn user to try that option.
>
> I don't know: is it even worth it to use IRQ, if it so problematic? Are
> there any significant advantages of that? I understand, polling is a
> resource consumer, but its just TPM, which is used mainly at the boot
> time, is it worth it?

+1

Thanks for sharing your opinion. I'll take the necessary steps.

BR, Jarkko