On Sun, Jan 31, 2021 at 10:43:05AM +0100, Dirk Gouders wrote: > Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > On Thu, 2021-01-28 at 14:07 +0100, Lukasz Majczak wrote: > >> There is a missing call to tpm_request_locality before the call to > >> the tpm_get_timeouts() and tpm_tis_probe_irq_single(). As the current > >> approach might work for tpm2, it fails for tpm1.x - in that case > >> call to tpm_get_timeouts() or tpm_tis_probe_irq_single() > >> without locality fails and in turn causes tpm_tis_core_init() to fail. > >> Tested on Samsung Chromebook Pro (Caroline). > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Lukasz Majczak <lma@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > Is it possible that you test against linux-next and see if any > > problems still arise? I've applied the locality fixes from James. > > I tested current linux-next and the warning still appears, > unfortunately. > > I then incrementally applied further patches from James' series [1] and > after "[PATCH v2 4/5] tpm_tis: fix IRQ probing" the warning has gone: > > # dmesg | grep tpm > [ 7.220410] tpm_tis STM0125:00: 2.0 TPM (device-id 0x0, rev-id 78) > [ 7.322564] Modules linked in: iwlmvm(+) btusb btrtl btbcm btintel mac80211 amdgpu(+) iwlwifi drm_ttm_helper tpm_crb sdhci_pci ttm cqhci gpu_sched sdhci ccp cfg80211 rng_core tpm_tis tpm_tis_core tpm thinkpad_acpi(+) wmi nvram pinctrl_amd > > You might notice there is another warning but that is rtc related and I > still have to find out if that is something I should report. 1/5 and 2/5 are on the other hand unconditionally "right things" to do. In your case the resulting state will anyway just result a polling driver and the kernel state remains stable. WARN_ONCE() is clearly an overkill, as kernel does not have inconsistent state. Using WARN_ONCE() was a mistake. I sent this fix: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-integrity/3936843b-c0da-dd8c-8aa9-90aa3b49d525@xxxxxxxxxxxxx/T/#t It will turn WARN_ONCE() to pr_warn_once() and also add the status code to klog entry. It's sufficient in this case. For 3/5-5/5 we need more time. /Jarkko
