Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751414AbdLXUdk (ORCPT ); Sun, 24 Dec 2017 15:33:40 -0500 Received: from mga01.intel.com ([192.55.52.88]:42740 "EHLO mga01.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750825AbdLXUdj (ORCPT ); Sun, 24 Dec 2017 15:33:39 -0500 X-Amp-Result: UNKNOWN X-Amp-Original-Verdict: FILE UNKNOWN X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.45,451,1508828400"; d="scan'208";a="15297835" Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2017 22:33:35 +0200 From: Jarkko Sakkinen To: Chris Chiu Cc: peterhuewe@gmx.de, jgg@ziepe.ca, linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org, Linux Kernel , Linux Upstreaming Team Subject: Re: TPM driver breaks S3 suspend Message-ID: <20171224203335.su56j5qs6rt6wd4v@linux.intel.com> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Organization: Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - Westendinkatu 7, 02160 Espoo User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170609 (1.8.3) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1252 Lines: 28 On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 04:04:56PM +0800, Chris Chiu wrote: > Hi, > We have a desktop which has S3 suspend (to RAM) problem due to > error messages as follows. > [ 198.908282] tpm tpm0: Error (38) sending savestate before suspend > [ 198.908289] __pnp_bus_suspend(): tpm_pm_suspend+0x0/0x160 returns 38 > [ 198.908293] dpm_run_callback(): pnp_bus_suspend+0x0/0x20 returns 38 > [ 198.908298] PM: Device 00:0b failed to suspend: error 38 > > However, the first suspend after boot is working although it still > shows an interesting message during resume. > [ 155.789945] tpm tpm0: A TPM error (38) occurred continue selftest > > The error code 38 in definition is TPM_ERR_INVALID_POSTINIT. I > found some explanations which said this error code means that this > command was received in the wrong sequence relative to a TPM_Startup > command. Don't really know what happens here and how should I deal > with this? Any suggestions? Please let me know what else information > should I provide. Thanks > > Chris The sequences for initializing TPM 1.x devices has been fairly static for a long time. Has this occured after a kernel update? Is there a kernel version where it used to work and a version where it doesn't? Thanks. /Jarkko