On Sun, 2023-04-23 at 18:40 +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > On Sun Apr 23, 2023 at 6:36 PM EEST, Michael Niewöhner wrote: > > On Sun, 2023-04-23 at 17:15 +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > > > On Sat Apr 22, 2023 at 3:59 AM EEST, Lino Sanfilippo wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > On 21.04.23 18:50, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I tested this with libvirt/QEMU/swtpm and did the following tests: > > > > > > > > > > 1. TPM 1.2 suspend/resume. > > > > > 2. TPM 2.0 kselftest. > > > > > 3. TPM 2.0 suspend/resume + kselftest. > > > > > > > > > > I see no issues so I can pick this for my pull request. > > > > > > > > > > Tests were performed on top of v6.3-rc7. > > > > > > > > > > For all: > > > > > > > > > > Tested-by: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > > > BR, Jarkko > > > > > > > > Thats great, thanks a lot for testing this! > > > > > > Thanks for the patience! I'm sorry it took so long but at least all the > > > steps in v11 make perfect sense and I see nothing that would rise red > > > flags. So we can land this with good confidence I think. > > > > > > BR, Jarkko > > > > I wonder, if it makes sense to submit this patch series to longterm and/or > > at > > least stable? > > it's a feature, so I don't think so. > > BR, Jarkko IMO it's a fix of a incomplete/broken implementation of that feature. I mean, the code even tested for interrupts and printed an error. It was just missed to enable them (TPM_CHIP_FLAG_IRQ).
