On 16.05.22 19:54, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> On Thu, May 12, 2022 at 08:21:17AM -0400, Mimi Zohar wrote:
>> On Wed, 2022-05-11 at 18:16 +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
>>> On Tue, May 10, 2022 at 01:29:03PM +0200, Johannes Holland wrote:
>>>> To comply with protocol requirements, minimum polling times must often
>>>> be adhered to. Therefore, a macro like tpm_msleep() should sleep at
>>>> least the given amount of time (not up to the given period). Have
>>>> tpm_msleep() sleep at least the given number of milliseconds.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Johannes Holland <johannes.holland@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>> ---
>>>> drivers/char/tpm/tpm.h | 4 ++--
>>>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm.h b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm.h
>>>> index 2163c6ee0d36..0971b55fffe3 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm.h
>>>> +++ b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm.h
>>>> @@ -185,8 +185,8 @@ int tpm_pm_resume(struct device *dev);
>>>>
>>>> static inline void tpm_msleep(unsigned int delay_msec)
>>>> {
>>>> - usleep_range((delay_msec * 1000) - TPM_TIMEOUT_RANGE_US,
>>>> - delay_msec * 1000);
>>>> + usleep_range(delay_msec * 1000, (delay_msec * 1000)
>>>> + + TPM_TIMEOUT_RANGE_US);
>>>> };
>>>>
>>>> int tpm_chip_start(struct tpm_chip *chip);
>>>> --
>>>> 2.34.1
>>>>
>>> For this I would really like to hear a 2nd opinion from Nayna and Mimi.
>> This patch reverts commit 5ef924d9e2e8 ("tpm: use tpm_msleep() value as
>> max delay"). Are you experiencing TPM issues that require it?
>>
>> thanks,
>>
>> Mimi
> Yeah, there's no data to support making anything. Without a live
> system having issues with this, I guess this quite definitive NAK.
>
> BR, Jarkko
>
Either way, a static range is not perfect. So I would suggest,to have the
values (TPM_TIMEOUT_RANGE_US, TPM_TIMEOUT_POLL) settable, to give the
possibility to adjust the polling timing vendor specific. Furthermore,
increasing the polling delay as a function of time would limit the number
of attempts, especially for long-running commands.
BR, Stefan
