On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 09:09:33PM +0100, Maciej S. Szmigiero wrote:
> Hi Jason,
>
> On 12.01.2017 19:42, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 07:08:53PM +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.
> >> It turns out the initialization proceeds fine until we get and start using
> >> chip-reported timeouts - and the chip reports C and D timeouts of zero.
> >>
> >> Since these are clearly not long enough let's add an override for them
> >> to TPM TIS default values, just as we do for Atmel 3204.
> >> A and B timeouts are set to the same values as the chip normally reports.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Maciej S. Szmigiero <m...@maciej.szmigiero.name>
> >
> >> static const struct tis_vendor_timeout_override
> >> vendor_timeout_overrides[] = {
> >> + /* Atmel 3203 */
> >> + { 0x32031114, { (10*1000), (10*1000),
> >> + (TIS_SHORT_TIMEOUT*1000), (TIS_SHORT_TIMEOUT*1000) } },
> >> /* Atmel 3204 */
> >> { 0x32041114, { (TIS_SHORT_TIMEOUT*1000), (TIS_LONG_TIMEOUT*1000),
> >> (TIS_SHORT_TIMEOUT*1000), (TIS_SHORT_TIMEOUT*1000) } },
> >
> > Can you also add a check for 0 timeouts in the core code and print a
> > FW_BUG :\
>
> Hmm, I dug in history of tpm-interface.c and the code had actually rejected
> zero timeouts until commit 8e54caf407b98e (this is the commit that
> introduced the Atmel 3204 workaround) and let default timeout values remain
> instead (it looks like they were exactly like these in above override at
> that time).
>
> Did Atmel 3204 report wrong but non-zero timeouts?
Wouldn't it make more sense to fix this by re-adding this fallback?
/Jarkko
