On Tue, Feb 28, 2023 at 04:36:26AM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > On Mon, Feb 27, 2023 at 05:37:01PM +0530, Krishna Yarlagadda wrote: > > TPM devices raise wait signal on last addr cycle. This can be detected > > by software driver by reading MISO line on same clock which requires > > full duplex support. In case of half duplex controllers wait detection > > has to be implemented in HW. > > Support hardware wait state detection by sending entire message and let > > controller handle flow control. > > When a is started sentence with the word "support" it translates to "I'm > too lazy to write a proper and verbose description of the implementation" > :-) > > It has some abstract ideas of the implementation, I give you that, but do > you think anyone ever will get any value of reading that honestly? A bit > more concrette description of the change helps e.g. when bisecting bugs. I would expect SPI_TPM_HW_FLOW to be documented in the kdocs to a level that any other HW could implement it as well. > > +int tpm_tis_spi_transfer(struct tpm_tis_data *data, u32 addr, u16 len, > > + u8 *in, const u8 *out) > > +{ > > + struct tpm_tis_spi_phy *phy = to_tpm_tis_spi_phy(data); > > + struct spi_controller *ctlr = phy->spi_device->controller; > > + > > + /* > > + * TPM flow control over SPI requires full duplex support. > > + * Send entire message to a half duplex controller to handle > > + * wait polling in controller. > > + * Set TPM HW flow control flag.. > > + */ > > + if (ctlr->flags & SPI_CONTROLLER_HALF_DUPLEX) { > > + phy->spi_device->mode |= SPI_TPM_HW_FLOW; Shouldn't we check that this special flow is supported when the SPI device is bound to the tpm in the first place? Jason