Re: Patch "tpm_tis: reserve chip for duration of tpm_tis_core_init" has been added to the 5.4-stable tree

[Jerry Snitselaar]

On Tue Dec 31 19, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> On Sun, 2019-12-29 at 23:41 -0800, Dan Williams wrote:
> > This looked like the wrong revert to me, and testing confirms that
> > this does not fix the problem.
> >
> > As I mentioned in the original report [1] the commit that bisect flagged was:
> >
> >     5b359c7c4372 tpm_tis_core: Turn on the TPM before probing IRQ's
> >
> > That commit moved tpm_chip_start() before irq probing. Commit
> > 21df4a8b6018 "tpm_tis: reserve chip for duration of tpm_tis_core_init"
> > does not appear to change anything in that regard.
> >
> > Perhaps this hardware has always had broken interrupts and needs to be
> > quirked off? I'm trying an experiment with tpm_tis_core.interrupts=0
> > workaround.
> >
> >
> > [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-integrity/CAA9_cmeLnHK4y+usQaWo72nUG3RNsripuZnS-koY4XTRC+mwJA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/
>
> I think for short term, yes, it is better to revert the commits
> that make things more broken.
>
> for-linus-v5.5-rc5 branch contains three commits that exactly do
> this i.e. the reverts that Stefan sent and revert to Jerry's earlier
> commit.
>
> After that is out of the table it is easier to analyze how the code
> should be actually refactored. Like, I have no idea when I get
> local HW that can reproduce this and Jerry still seems to have the
> same issue. It'd be nice make the exactly right changes instead of
> reverts but situation is what it is.

Unfortunately I haven't found a system yet where I get into this code
path. So I've been relying on Dan's testing and the owner of the
t490s.

> Please check the branch and ACK/NAK if I can add tested-by's (and
> other tags).
>
> /Jarkko