On Tue, 2021-11-02 at 17:20 +0200, amirmizi6@xxxxxxxxx wrote: > From: Amir Mizinski <amirmizi6@xxxxxxxxx> > > Currently, the driver polls the TPM_STS.stsValid field until TRUE; then it > reads TPM_STS register again to verify only that TPM_STS.expect field is > FALSE (i.e., it ignores TPM_STS.stsValid). > Since TPM_STS.stsValid represents the TPM_STS.expect validity, a check of > only one of these fields is wrong. Fix this condition so that both fields > are checked in the same TPM_STS register read. > > Modify the signature of wait_for_tpm_stat() to tpm_tis_wait_for_stat(), > adding an additional "expected" parameter to its call. > tpm_tis_wait_for_stat() is now polling the TPM_STS with a mask and waits > for the value in "expected". This modification adds the ability to check if > certain TPM_STS bits have been cleared. > For example, use the new parameter to check in status that TPM_STS_VALID > is set and also that TPM_STS_EXPECT is zeroed. This prevents a racy > check. > > Suggested-by: Benoit Houyere <benoit.houyere@xxxxxx> > Signed-off-by: Amir Mizinski <amirmizi6@xxxxxxxxx> Thank you, this looks legit now! Reviewed-by: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@xxxxxxxxxx> /Jarkko
