On Fri Jan 31, 2025 at 7:28 PM EET, Michal Suchánek wrote: > On Fri, Jan 31, 2025 at 07:12:06PM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > > On Fri Jan 31, 2025 at 3:02 PM EET, Michal Suchánek wrote: > > > It looks like the timeout_b is used exclusively as the ready timeout *), > > > with various sources of the value depending on chip type. > > > > > > Then increasing it should not cause any problem other than the kernel > > > waiting longer when the TPM chip is really stuck. > > > > > > * There is one instance of use of timeout_b for TPM_STS_VALID in > > > st33zp24_pm_resume. > > > > Possible for you to give a shot for patch and try it out for a while? > > I'm fine with 2x, or even 4x in this case. > > I will see what I can do. It will definitely take a while. > > How would you like to multiply it? > > At the sime the timeout_b is assigned, or at the time it's used? > > Any specific patch that you have in mind?
I'll think about this a bit and send a patch with RFC tag. Might take to late next week. BR, Jarkko
