Re: 2.6.37.1 s2disk regression (TPM)

[Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@gmail.com>]

On 02/21/2011 11:07 PM, Rajiv Andrade wrote:
> On 02/21/2011 06:44 PM, Jiri Slaby wrote:
>> On 02/21/2011 10:29 PM, Stefan Berger wrote:
>>> On 02/21/2011 03:39 PM, Jiri Slaby wrote:
>>>> On 02/21/2011 06:12 PM, Rajiv Andrade wrote:
>>>>> On 02/21/2011 01:34 PM, Jiri Slaby wrote:
>>>>>> There has to be another problem which caused my regression. And
>>>>>> since it
>>>>>> reports "Operation Timed out", the former default timeout values
>>>>>> worked
>>>>>> for me, the ones read from TPM do not.
>>>>> Yes, it's highly due inconsistent timeout values reported by the
>>>>> TPM as
>>>>> I mentioned, my working timeouts are:
>>>>> 3020000 4510000 181000000
>>>> 1000000 2000 150000
>>>>
>>>> Actually the first one from HW is 1. This is one is HZ after correction
>>>> in get_timeout. So perhaps it is in ms, yes.
>>> Following the specs, the timeouts are supposed to be in microseconds and
>>> ascending order for short, medium and long duration. Of course, if the
>>> device returns wrong timeouts, the command isn't going to succeed,
>>> failing the suspend in this case. Nevertheless, I think we need the
>>> patch I put in but at the same time we'll need a work-around for devices
>>> like this.
>> Yes, the patch is correct per se. But as it breaks bunch of machines it
>> cannot go in now. The rule is no regressions.
>>
>> After you have the workaround it should go into the next rc1 after that.
>> Do you plan to add a dmi-based quirk? Or, IOW do you want me to attach
>> dmidecode output? Or are you going to base it solely on TPM
>> manufacturer/version
> It's more reliable to base the workaround on the values themselves,
> instead of the TPM's ID, since
> we don't know whether other models will behave similarly.

As I wrote, you may base it on dmi data.

> It should be fine then to extend the existing workaround for short
> timeouts to the medium and long ones.

OK, but how will you guess the values?

regards,
-- 
js