On Thu, Apr 03, 2025 at 12:00:36PM +0100, Jonathan McDowell wrote: > On Wed, Apr 02, 2025 at 10:07:39PM +0200, Michal Suchánek wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 02, 2025 at 06:45:40PM +0100, Jonathan McDowell wrote: > > > On Wed, Apr 02, 2025 at 07:21:30PM +0200, Michal Suchanek wrote: > > > > With some Infineon chips the timeouts in tpm_tis_send_data (both B and > > > > C) can reach up to about 2250 ms. > > > > > > > > Extend the timeout duration to accommodate this. > > > > > > The problem here is the bump of timeout_c is going to interact poorly with > > > the Infineon errata workaround, as now we'll wait 4s instead of 200ms to > > > detect the stuck status change. > > > > Yes, that's problematic. Is it possible to detect the errata by anything > > other than waiting for the timeout to expire? > > Not that I'm aware of, nor have seen in my experimentation. It's a "stuck" > status, so the timeout is how it's detected. > > OOI, have you tried back porting the fixes that are in mainline for 6.15 to > your frankenkernel? I _think_ the errata fix might end up resolving at least > the timeout for valid for you, as a side effect? We're currently rolling > them out across our fleet, but I don't have enough runtime yet to be sure > they've sorted all the timeout instances we see.
When was that merged? The change I see is that sometimes EAGAIN is returned instead of ETIME but based on the previous discussion this is unlikely to help. Thanks Michal > > J. > > -- > /-\ | He's weird? It's ok, I'm fluent in > |@/ Debian GNU/Linux Developer | weird. > \- |
