On Thu, Jun 04, 2020 at 06:48:58AM -0700, Doug Anderson wrote: > Hi, > > On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 2:40 AM Jarkko Sakkinen > <jarkko.sakkinen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Jun 01, 2020 at 03:54:03PM -0700, Doug Anderson wrote: > > > Does that answer your question, or were you worried about us needing > > > to init iobuf[0] to 0 in some other case? > > > > > > -Doug > > > > No, but it should be treated as a bug fix for CR50 implementation i.e. > > for 797c0113c9a481d4554988d70b5b52fae657262f, or is there some reason > > why it shouldn't? > > As talked about in the commit message, I think this is a slight > cleanup for non-Cr50 too. Specifically if we end up running through > the TPM_RETRY loop a second time we weren't re-initting "phy->iobuf[0] > = 0;" That means that the 2nd time through the loop we were actually > sending the TPM back the byte that the TPM sent us the first time > through the loop. > > Presumably this doesn't matter much, but it still feels nicer not to > be sending the TPM's bytes back to it when we're not really supposed > to. > > Also, as mentioned in the commit message, I haven't observed this > fixing any problems. I only came up with it from code inspection > while trying to track something else down. Thanks, I'm happy how it is. Reviewed-by: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> /Jarkko
