On Wed, Feb 03, 2021 at 02:43:44PM +0100, Lukasz Majczak wrote: > Hi Jarkko, Dirk, > > Jarkko, > Thank you for your points - I will try to fix all you have mentioned. > I think it would be good to clarify a few things, before going with > the next version. Regarding use tpm_chip_start/stop() around > tpm2_probe() call - I have followed the similar way it is done in the > probe_itpm() function, where is also a call to tpm_tis_send_data() > guarded by request/release_locality(). I have tested it on the Samsung > Chromebook Pro (which reports TPM 1.2 / Cr50) and it was sufficient > (e.g. I didn't have to enable the clock) to get rid of a trace > mentioned in the commit message....but now writing these words I'm > starting to think that using tpm_chip_start/stop() could be safer from > a point of view of other TPMs... so if you suggest using > tpm_chip_start/stop() shall I also add it to the probe_itpm() (instead > of request/release_locality()) ? > > Dirk, > Thanks for the clarification. Regarding the issue you observe - I > wanted to address at first the one that is generating the trace > (please check the commit message) because it was leading to returning > an error in the tpm_tis_status() function causing TPM module not > initialized at all in the end - requesting locality before the call to > the tpm_tis_send_data() has helped in my case (my test environment). I > am aware of the second issue - "TPM interrupt not working, polling > instead", but as it is not as critical as the first one, I decided to > work on it later. > > Thank you once again for all your input and sorry for a confusion with > sending patches. NP, thanks for doing this. Just take your time and polish the cosmetic things. Especially for bug fixes a clean changelog is essential. > Best regards, > Lukasz /Jarkko
