Re: [tpmdd-devel] [PATCH] tpm_tis: use default timeout value if chip reports it as zero

2017-01-25 Thread Maciej S. Szmigiero
On 25.01.2017 23:58, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 10:26:44PM +0100, Maciej S. Szmigiero wrote: >> On 25.01.2017 21:09, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: >>> On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 02:42:29PM +0100, Maciej S. Szmigiero wrote: On 24.01.2017 13:01, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > On Mon,

Re: [tpmdd-devel] [PATCH] tpm_tis: use default timeout value if chip reports it as zero

2017-01-25 Thread Jarkko Sakkinen
On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 02:42:29PM +0100, Maciej S. Szmigiero wrote: > On 24.01.2017 13:01, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 06:23:55PM +0100, Maciej S. Szmigiero wrote: > >> On 16.01.2017 17:39, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > >>> On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 03:58:26PM +0100, Maciej S.

Re: [tpmdd-devel] [PATCH] tpm_tis: use default timeout value if chip reports it as zero

2017-01-24 Thread Maciej S. Szmigiero
On 24.01.2017 13:01, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 06:23:55PM +0100, Maciej S. Szmigiero wrote: >> On 16.01.2017 17:39, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: >>> On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 03:58:26PM +0100, Maciej S. Szmigiero wrote: On 16.01.2017 14:55, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > On Mon,

Re: [tpmdd-devel] [PATCH] tpm_tis: use default timeout value if chip reports it as zero

2017-01-24 Thread Jarkko Sakkinen
On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 06:23:55PM +0100, Maciej S. Szmigiero wrote: > On 16.01.2017 17:39, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 03:58:26PM +0100, Maciej S. Szmigiero wrote: > >> On 16.01.2017 14:55, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > >>> On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 03:46:12PM +0200, Jarkko

Re: [tpmdd-devel] [PATCH] tpm_tis: use default timeout value if chip reports it as zero

2017-01-16 Thread Jarkko Sakkinen
On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 03:58:26PM +0100, Maciej S. Szmigiero wrote: > On 16.01.2017 14:55, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 03:46:12PM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > >> On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 11:42:02AM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > >>> On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 10:37:00PM

Re: [tpmdd-devel] [PATCH] tpm_tis: use default timeout value if chip reports it as zero

2017-01-16 Thread Maciej S. Szmigiero
On 16.01.2017 14:55, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 03:46:12PM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: >> On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 11:42:02AM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: >>> On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 10:37:00PM +0100, Maciej S. Szmigiero wrote: Since commit 1107d065fdf1 ("tpm_tis:

Re: [tpmdd-devel] [PATCH] tpm_tis: use default timeout value if chip reports it as zero

2017-01-16 Thread Jarkko Sakkinen
On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 03:46:12PM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 11:42:02AM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 10:37:00PM +0100, Maciej S. Szmigiero wrote: > > > Since commit 1107d065fdf1 ("tpm_tis: Introduce intermediate layer for TPM > > >

Re: [tpmdd-devel] [PATCH] tpm_tis: use default timeout value if chip reports it as zero

2017-01-16 Thread Jarkko Sakkinen
On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 11:42:02AM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 10:37:00PM +0100, Maciej S. Szmigiero wrote: > > Since commit 1107d065fdf1 ("tpm_tis: Introduce intermediate layer for TPM > > access") Atmel 3203 TPM on ThinkPad X61S (TPM firmware version 13.9) no > >

Re: [tpmdd-devel] [PATCH] tpm_tis: use default timeout value if chip reports it as zero

2017-01-16 Thread Jarkko Sakkinen
On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 10:37:00PM +0100, Maciej S. Szmigiero wrote: > Since commit 1107d065fdf1 ("tpm_tis: Introduce intermediate layer for TPM > access") Atmel 3203 TPM on ThinkPad X61S (TPM firmware version 13.9) no > longer works. > The initialization proceeds fine until we get and start using

[tpmdd-devel] [PATCH] tpm_tis: use default timeout value if chip reports it as zero

2017-01-13 Thread Maciej S. Szmigiero
Since commit 1107d065fdf1 ("tpm_tis: Introduce intermediate layer for TPM access") Atmel 3203 TPM on ThinkPad X61S (TPM firmware version 13.9) no longer works. The initialization proceeds fine until we get and start using chip-reported timeouts - and the chip reports C and D timeouts of zero. It