>-----Original Message----- >From: linux-integrity-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:linux-integrity- >owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jason Gunthorpe >Sent: Monday, November 20, 2017 11:21 AM >To: Shaikh, Azhar <azhar.shaikh@xxxxxxxxx> >Cc: jarkko.sakkinen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; peterhuewe@xxxxxx; linux- >integrity@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v3 1/2] tpm: Keep CLKRUN enabled throughout the >duration of transmit_cmd() > >On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 06:52:13PM +0000, Shaikh, Azhar wrote: > >> We want to have the CLKRUN disabled for any/all TPM transactions. >> The clk_toggle handles only the case while a TPM command is being sent >> and received. We have to take into consideration other places too >> where TPM access is happening outside the TPM command flow. For >> eg: request_locality, check_locality, release_locality, wait_startup >> which might be called outside the flow of a TPM command. > >Okay, this makes sense, and would be good to touch on in the commit >description if it stays this way, IMHO. Sure, I will add this in the commit message. > >However, why not have check_locality, release_locality, wait_startup use >clk_toggle instead? That seems better to me?? > I think, better to have the clk disable/enable at one place instead of adding it all locations where TPM access is done. The clk_toggle is kind of a special case where, for the complete duration of the TPM command processing, the CLKRUN protocol was supposed to be disabled. For rest of the places we can disable and re-enable the clkrun as soon as possible. Also since it is part of the read/write APIs we won't miss any other location in the code where TPM access is done. >> Will change it to clk_enable. Should I then upload the next patch for >> review and remove the "RFC" tag now? And if so, should I retain the >> change history of the patch versions? > >Yes for both. > >I think we are well past the RFC stage now :) > Thank you :) I will post the next patchset and remove the RFC tag. >Jason Regards, Azhar Shaikh
