On Fri, Jan 05, 2018 at 08:38:11AM +0100, Alexander Steffen wrote: > On 05.01.2018 07:46, Nayna Jain wrote: > > On 01/04/2018 06:41 PM, Alexander.Steffen@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > > > > On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 02:04:39PM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > > > > > On Fri, Dec 08, 2017 at 07:46:49PM +0100, Alexander Steffen wrote: > > > > > > Disclaimer: This is RFC because unfortunately I do not > > > > > > have the time to > > > > bring it up to the usual standards. But from lying around on my > > > > hard disk it > > > > definitely won't improve, so I've decided to publish it now, to > > > > get at least > > > > some feedback or maybe for somebody else to pick it up. Since the work > > > > began some time ago, it is probably not rebased against the > > > > current state > > > > (but hopefully still applies). > > > > > > This is a collection of all the fixes I made during the > > > > > > investigation of the > > > > problems with the "ignore burstcount" change. These are mainly > > > > fixes for the > > > > wait state handling in tpm_tis_spi, that probably was not really > > > > tested so far, > > > > since the previous implementation avoided wait states as far as > > > > possible. It > > > > also includes changes to tpm_tis_core, so that it follows the > > > > specification > > > > more closely. Finally, I've included a rebased version of the > > > > original "ignore > > > > burstcount" patch. Together, those patches pass all my tests and > > > > also each > > > > intermediate step is fine (so that bisecting still works). > > > > > > Alexander Steffen (8): > > > > > > tpm_tis_core: clean up whitespace > > > > > > tpm_tis_core: access single TIS registers before doing complex > > > > > > transfers > > > > > > tpm_tis_core: correctly wait for flags to become zero > > > > > > tpm_tis_core: send all data in single operation > > > > > > tpm_tis_core: use XDATA_FIFO for transfers if available > > > > > > tpm_tis_spi: fix sending wrong data during wait state handling > > > > > > tpm_tis_spi: release CS line when wait state handling fails > > > > > > tpm_tis_spi: add delay between wait state retries > > > > > > > > > > > > Nayna Jain (1): > > > > > > tpm: ignore burstcount to improve tpm_tis send() performance > > > > > > > > > > > > drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_core.c | 131 ++++++++++++++++++++--------- > > > > ----------- > > > > > > drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_core.h | 26 ++++---- > > > > > > drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_spi.c | 21 +++++-- > > > > > > 3 files changed, 95 insertions(+), 83 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > 2.7.4 > > > > > > > > > > > Might not have time to review this before holidays but will do if > > > > > I can. > > > > Unfortunately this and your patches for broken TPMs came so late that > > > > they have no chance to make into 4.16. Thus, I will postpone their > > > > review after the pull request and take care of the high priority stuff > > > > for that release. > > > As long the "ignore burstcount" patch does not make it into 4.16 > > > either, that's fine. Then nothing new gets broken, it just does not > > > get any faster. > > > > Alex, if I am right, among following 4 patches, > > > > Patch 1 - tpm: move wait_for_tpm_stat() to respective driver files > > Patch 2 - tpm: ignore burstcount to improve tpm_tis send() performance > > Patch 3 - tpm: reduce tpm polling delay in tpm_tis_core > > Patch 4 - tpm: use tpm_msleep() value as max delay > > > > it is only the burstcount patch (Patch 2) which caused the issue. > > With that, Jarkko, Alex, can we just exclude this and have other three > > patches pulled for 4.16 ? > > Those other three patches do not cause any issues in my tests, so I'm fine > with that. Yes. /Jarkko
