On 02/22/2011 01:42 AM, Stefan Berger wrote: > On 02/21/2011 05:10 PM, Jiri Slaby wrote: >> On 02/21/2011 11:07 PM, Rajiv Andrade wrote: >>> On 02/21/2011 06:44 PM, Jiri Slaby wrote: >>>> On 02/21/2011 10:29 PM, Stefan Berger wrote: >>>>> On 02/21/2011 03:39 PM, Jiri Slaby wrote: >>>>>> On 02/21/2011 06:12 PM, Rajiv Andrade wrote: >>>>>>> On 02/21/2011 01:34 PM, Jiri Slaby wrote: >>>>>>>> There has to be another problem which caused my regression. And >>>>>>>> since it >>>>>>>> reports "Operation Timed out", the former default timeout values >>>>>>>> worked >>>>>>>> for me, the ones read from TPM do not. >>>>>>> Yes, it's highly due inconsistent timeout values reported by the >>>>>>> TPM as >>>>>>> I mentioned, my working timeouts are: >>>>>>> 3020000 4510000 181000000 >>>>>> 1000000 2000 150000 >>>>>> >>>>>> Actually the first one from HW is 1. This is one is HZ after >>>>>> correction >>>>>> in get_timeout. So perhaps it is in ms, yes. >>>>> Following the specs, the timeouts are supposed to be in >>>>> microseconds and >>>>> ascending order for short, medium and long duration. Of course, if the >>>>> device returns wrong timeouts, the command isn't going to succeed, >>>>> failing the suspend in this case. Nevertheless, I think we need the >>>>> patch I put in but at the same time we'll need a work-around for >>>>> devices >>>>> like this. >>>> Yes, the patch is correct per se. But as it breaks bunch of machines it >>>> cannot go in now. The rule is no regressions. >>>> >>>> After you have the workaround it should go into the next rc1 after >>>> that. >>>> Do you plan to add a dmi-based quirk? Or, IOW do you want me to attach >>>> dmidecode output? Or are you going to base it solely on TPM >>>> manufacturer/version >>> It's more reliable to base the workaround on the values themselves, >>> instead of the TPM's ID, since >>> we don't know whether other models will behave similarly. >> As I wrote, you may base it on dmi data. >> >>> It should be fine then to extend the existing workaround for short >>> timeouts to the medium and long ones. >> OK, but how will you guess the values? > One way of doing it would be to at least make sure that the timeouts are > > short < medium < long > > and if that's not true, as in the case of your TPM, set the timeouts to > 0 and have Rajiv's work-around kick in OR we assign the same high > values to the timeouts explicily that Rajiv's work-around is using right > now. Of course there could be another type of bad TPM firmware out there > where all values are in ascending order but given in ms and cause > time-outs -- but I would wait for someone to point that out since I am > not aware of such a device. Note that it is in ascending order (1 2000 150000). As I wrote the first timeout (1) is replaced by one HZ in get_timeouts. regards, -- js _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
