> I tried your patch out on my systems with a "reserved" but not "NVS" > region conflict, and you are correct - the region is not busy, and > the driver is able to map the buffers with your patch. > > > First of all, I misunderstood your message. > > I have to tell you about the buffer size exactly. The command and response > > buffer sizes in ACPI table were 0x1000 and this was 4K, not 1K. The sizes in > > the control register were 0x4000 and this was 16K (large buffer size), not 4K. > > I have been using the TPM for my research and the typical cases like creating > > public/private keys, encrypting/decrypting data, sealing/unsealing a secrete, > > and getting random numbers are not over 4K buffer. So, as you know, I think > > the 4K buffer can handle the most cases and the current implementation of > > crb_fixup_cmd_size() works well. If you concern the specific case that uses > > over 4K buffer, please let me know. > > I have read postings of some systems where ACPI says 1K, but in all of my cases > that I can test, you are correct that ACPI is saying 4K instead of the device's 16K. > I tried really hard, but couldn't send any valid requests over 4K, (I believe that's > actually the max by the spec), and therefore never saw any failures on my > systems. I think the driver behavior is wrong for those other cases, but perhaps > this should wait until someone can get access and do the testing. > > So I'm happy with your patches, other than what is decided for the nvs driver > conflict. I'm testing them on some production systems, and have seen no other > issues. > > dave Thank you for your help and testing. I would like to make patch v2 to change the point that kbuild robot told me. If you don't mind, may I add "tested-by" tag to patch v2 with your name and email address? Seunghun
