Hi
On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 02:18:26PM -0500, Nayna Jain wrote:
> This patch moves TPM_POLL_SLEEP from tpm_tis_core.c to tpm.h, renaming
> it to TPM_TIMEOUT_POLL, to follow the existing enum naming
> conventions.
>
> Signed-off-by: Nayna Jain <na...@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
The cover letter is missing. Are this meant to be a patch set or
individual patches? I'll check these anyway.
> ---
> drivers/char/tpm/tpm.h | 3 ++-
> drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_core.c | 10 ++--------
> 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm.h b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm.h
> index f895fba4e20d..7e797377e1eb 100644
> --- a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm.h
> +++ b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm.h
> @@ -53,7 +53,8 @@ enum tpm_const {
> enum tpm_timeout {
> TPM_TIMEOUT = 5, /* msecs */
> TPM_TIMEOUT_RETRY = 100, /* msecs */
> - TPM_TIMEOUT_RANGE_US = 300 /* usecs */
> + TPM_TIMEOUT_RANGE_US = 300, /* usecs */
What is happening here?
> + TPM_TIMEOUT_POLL = 1 /* msecs */
> };
>
> /* TPM addresses */
> diff --git a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_core.c b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_core.c
> index 183a5f54d875..dc474e7244a6 100644
> --- a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_core.c
> +++ b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_core.c
> @@ -31,12 +31,6 @@
> #include "tpm.h"
> #include "tpm_tis_core.h"
>
> -/* This is a polling delay to check for status and burstcount.
> - * As per ddwg input, expectation is that status check and burstcount
> - * check should return within few usecs.
> - */
> -#define TPM_POLL_SLEEP 1 /* msec */
> -
> static void tpm_tis_clkrun_enable(struct tpm_chip *chip, bool value);
>
> static bool wait_for_tpm_stat_cond(struct tpm_chip *chip, u8 mask,
> @@ -90,7 +84,7 @@ static int wait_for_tpm_stat(struct tpm_chip *chip, u8 mask,
> }
> } else {
> do {
> - tpm_msleep(TPM_POLL_SLEEP);
> + tpm_msleep(TPM_TIMEOUT_POLL);
> status = chip->ops->status(chip);
> if ((status & mask) == mask)
> return 0;
> @@ -232,7 +226,7 @@ static int get_burstcount(struct tpm_chip *chip)
> burstcnt = (value >> 8) & 0xFFFF;
> if (burstcnt)
> return burstcnt;
> - tpm_msleep(TPM_POLL_SLEEP);
> + tpm_msleep(TPM_TIMEOUT_POLL);
> } while (time_before(jiffies, stop));
> return -EBUSY;
> }
> --
> 2.13.3
>
Otherwise, looks fine.
/Jarkko
