On 12.01.2017 21:20, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > 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: (..) >>> 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?
I think it would be a cleaner fix and also catch other problematic devices (if there are any) without needing to add individual overrides. > /Jarkko Maciej
