On Tue, May 23, 2023 at 12:14:28PM +0300, Péter Ujfalusi wrote: > On 23/05/2023 10:44, Lukas Wunner wrote: > > On Tue, May 23, 2023 at 09:48:23AM +0300, Péter Ujfalusi wrote: > >> On 22/05/2023 17:31, Lino Sanfilippo wrote: > > [...] > >> This looked promising, however it looks like the UPX-i11 needs the DMI > >> quirk. > > > > Why is that? Is there a fundamental problem with the patch or is it > > a specific issue with that device? > > The flood is not detected (if there is a flood at all), interrupt stops > working after about 200 interrupts - in the latest boot at 118th. You've got a variant of the "never asserted interrupt". That condition is currently tested only once on probe in tpm_tis_core_init(). The solution would be to disable interrupts whenever they're not (or no longer asserted). However, that's a distinct issue from the one addressed by the present patch, which deals with a "never *de*asserted interrupt". > >>> + dev_err(&chip->dev, HW_ERR > >>> + "TPM interrupt storm detected, polling instead\n"); > >> > >> Should this be dev_warn or even dev_info level? > > > > The corresponding message emitted in tpm_tis_core_init() for > > an interrupt that's *never* asserted uses dev_err(), so using > > dev_err() here as well serves consistency: > > > > dev_err(&chip->dev, FW_BUG > > "TPM interrupt not working, polling instead\n"); > > > > That way the same severity is used both for the never asserted and > > the never deasserted interrupt case. > > Oh, OK. > Is there anything the user can do to have a ERROR less boot? You're right that the user can't do anything about it and that toning the message down to KERN_WARN or even KERN_NOTICE severity may be appropriate. However the above-quoted message for the never asserted interrupt in tpm_tis_core_init() should then likewise be toned down to the same severity. I'm wondering why that message uses FW_BUG. That doesn't make any sense to me. It's typically not a firmware bug, but a hardware issue, e.g. an interrupt pin may erroneously not be connected or may be connected to ground. Lino used HW_ERR, which seems more appropriate to me. > >>> rc = tpm_tis_write32(priv, TPM_INT_STATUS(priv->locality), interrupt); > >>> tpm_tis_relinquish_locality(chip, 0); > >>> if (rc < 0) > >>> - return IRQ_NONE; > >>> + goto unhandled; > >> > >> This is more like an error than just unhandled IRQ. Yes, it was ignored, > >> probably because it is common? > > > > The interrupt may be shared and then it's not an error. > > but this is tpm_tis_write32() failing, no? If it is shared interrupt and > we return IRQ_HANDLED unconditionally then I think the core will think > that the interrupt was for this device and it was handled. No. The IRQ_HANDLED versus IRQ_NONE return values are merely used for book-keeping of spurious interrupts. If IRQ_HANDLED is returned, the other handlers will still be invoked. It is not discernible whether a shared interrupt was asserted by a single device or by multiple devices, so all handlers need to be called. Thanks, Lukas
