On 1/29/21 2:49 PM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:

On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 09:18:46AM -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote:

quoted

Hi Lukasz,

On Sat, Jan 23, 2021 at 02:42:47AM +0100, Lukasz Majczak wrote:

quoted

There is a missing call to start_tpm_chip before the call to
the tpm_get_timeouts() and tpm_tis_probe_irq_single(). As the current
approach maight work for tpm2, it fails for tpm1.x - in that case
call to tpm_get_timeouts() or tpm_tis_probe_irq_single() tries to
transmit TPM commands on a disabled chip what what doesn't succeed

s/what what/what/

s/maight/might/

Also, would be nice to have the capatalization of acronyms correct
and consistent. E.g. tpm1.x should be rather written as "TPM 1.x
chips".

It's also incorrect to state that something fails for TPM 1.x chips,
unless you can somehow make a sense that every single TPM 1.x at wild
fails, which probably is not true.

quoted

quoted

and in turn causes tpm_tis_core_init() to fail.
Tested on Samsung Chromebook Pro (Caroline).

Anyone can tell me what does Caroline mean anyway?

"Caroline" is the code name for Samsung Chromebook Pro. The term
"Samsung Chromebook Pro (Caroline)" is quite widely used for this
system. Or, alternatively, "Caroline (Samsung Chromebook Pro)".

Guenter