Le 16/02/21 à 12:17, Lukasz Majczak a écrit :
Hi Laurent,
Hello Lukasz,
I think your case is different, as the trace shows the issue in the place already guarded by tpm_chip_start()/stop(). Can you past more dmesg log? (With tpm prefix?). I believe tpm_tis_status() might return something different than 0xff here.
I see "WARNING: CPU: 5 PID: 449 at drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_core.c:249 tpm_tis_status+0x86/0xa0 [tpm_tis_core]" in dmesg
