On 16.01.2017 14:55, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 03:46:12PM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 11:42:02AM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 10:37:00PM +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.
>>>> The initialization proceeds fine until we get and start using chip-reported
>>>> timeouts - and the chip reports C and D timeouts of zero.
>>>>
>>>> It turns out that until commit 8e54caf407b98e ("tpm: Provide a generic
>>>> means to override the chip returned timeouts") we had actually let default
>>>> timeout values remain in this case, so let's bring back this behavior to
>>>> make chips like Atmel 3203 work again.
>>>>
>>>> Use a common code that was introduced by that commit so a warning is
>>>> printed in this case and /sys/class/tpm/tpm*/timeouts correctly says the
>>>> timeouts aren't chip-original.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Maciej S. Szmigiero <m...@maciej.szmigiero.name>
>>>>
>>>> Fixes: 1107d065fdf1 ("tpm_tis: Introduce intermediate layer for TPM
>>>> access")
>>>> Cc: sta...@vger.kernel.org
>>>
>>> Reviewed-by: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakki...@linux.intel.com>
>>
>> It's now applied to my master branch so if someone wants to
>> test it, it should be fairly easy.
>
> And I decided to squash the rename commit to it.
Wouldn't it be better to squash the rename commit into "fix iTPM probe via
probe_itpm() function" patch (if it isn't too late), since they touch the
same functionality?
>
> /Jarkko
>
Maciej
