On Wed, May 21, 2025 at 09:13:34AM +0200, Stefano Garzarella wrote:

On Tue, 20 May 2025 at 22:02, Jarkko Sakkinen [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Tue, May 20, 2025 at 06:06:50PM +0200, Stefano Garzarella wrote:

quoted

On Thu, 15 May 2025 at 03:45, Jarkko Sakkinen [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Wed, May 14, 2025 at 03:46:30PM +0200, Stefano Garzarella wrote:

quoted

From: Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare@redhat.com>

This driver does not support interrupts, and receiving the response is
synchronous with sending the command.

Enable synchronous send() with TPM_CHIP_FLAG_SYNC, which implies that
->send() already fills the provided buffer with a response, and ->recv()
is not implemented.

Keep using the same pre-allocated buffer to avoid having to allocate
it for each command. We need the buffer to have the header required by
the SVSM protocol and the command contiguous in memory.

Signed-off-by: Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare@redhat.com>
---
v5:
- changed order and parameter names to match tpm_try_transmit() [Jarkko]
v4:
- reworked commit description [Jarkko]
---
 drivers/char/tpm/tpm_svsm.c | 27 +++++++++++----------------
 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)

[...]

quoted

quoted

quoted

I can pick this for 6.16.

Great, thanks!

Can you rebase this on top of my next branch and send one more version
of the series (fake ancestor crap)?

I tried, but the last patch (this one) is based on the series merged
on the tip tree, where I introduced tpm_svsm.
I can see that series in linux-next merged with commit
16a56ee59ab8ee05e67de35bbb5782ef9cfb4f07,
but I can't see it in your next tree [1].

How do we proceed in such cases?

Just to be sure, did I use the right tree?

Thanks for the remark. Lemme check tonight. Hold on doing
anything ;-) We'll get there...

Thanks,
Stefano

[1] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/jarkko/linux-tpmdd.git/log/?h=next

BR, Jarkko