Re: [PATCH] tpm_tis: use default timeout value if chip reports it as zero

[Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>]

On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 06:23:55PM +0100, Maciej S. Szmigiero wrote:
> On 16.01.2017 17:39, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 03:58:26PM +0100, Maciej S. Szmigiero wrote:
> >> On 16.01.2017 14:55, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> >>> On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 03:46:12PM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> >>>> On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 11:42:02AM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> >>>>> On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 10:37:00PM +0100, Maciej S. Szmigiero wrote:
> >>>>>> Since commit 1107d065fdf1 ("tpm_tis: Introduce intermediate layer for TPM
> >>>>>> access") Atmel 3203 TPM on ThinkPad X61S (TPM firmware version 13.9) no
> >>>>>> longer works.
> >>>>>> The initialization proceeds fine until we get and start using chip-reported
> >>>>>> timeouts - and the chip reports C and D timeouts of zero.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> It turns out that until commit 8e54caf407b98e ("tpm: Provide a generic
> >>>>>> means to override the chip returned timeouts") we had actually let default
> >>>>>> timeout values remain in this case, so let's bring back this behavior to
> >>>>>> make chips like Atmel 3203 work again.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Use a common code that was introduced by that commit so a warning is
> >>>>>> printed in this case and /sys/class/tpm/tpm*/timeouts correctly says the
> >>>>>> timeouts aren't chip-original.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Maciej S. Szmigiero <mail@maciej.szmigiero.name>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Fixes: 1107d065fdf1 ("tpm_tis: Introduce intermediate layer for TPM access")
> >>>>>> Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Reviewed-by: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>
> >>>>
> >>>> It's now applied to my master branch so if someone wants to
> >>>> test it, it should be fairly easy.
> >>>
> >>> And I decided to squash the rename commit to it.
> >>
> >> Wouldn't it be better to squash the rename commit into "fix iTPM probe via
> >> probe_itpm() function" patch (if it isn't too late), since they touch the
> >> same functionality?
> > 
> > It can be renamed, modified and even dropped as long as it is in my
> > master branch and I haven't sent pull request to James Morris.
> 
> I see that "fix iTPM probe via probe_itpm() function" patch isn't present
> in your pull request for 4.11.
> 
> What I meant in previous message was that you squashed and "rename
> TPM_TIS_ITPM_POSSIBLE to TPM_TIS_ITPM_WORKAROUND" patch into "use default timeout
> value if chip reports it as zero" patch while it was logically connected with
> "fix iTPM probe via probe_itpm() function" patch instead (which now isn't present
> at all in the tree).
> Sorry if it wasn't 100% clear.

I see.

I'll probably send later on pull request with fixes for release content
I can include that commit into that pull request. Does that work for
you?

/Jarkko