Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Mon, 11 Nov 2019 20:36:37 -0700
From:   Jerry Snitselaar <jsnitsel@redhat.com>
To:     Stefan Berger <stefanb@linux.ibm.com>,
        Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>,
        linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: question about setting TPM_CHIP_FLAG_IRQ in tpm_tis_core_init
Message-ID: <20191112033637.kxotlhm6mtr5irvd@cantor>
Reply-To: Jerry Snitselaar <jsnitsel@redhat.com>
Mail-Followup-To: Stefan Berger <stefanb@linux.ibm.com>,
        Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>,
        linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=WINDOWS-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Question about 1ea32c83c699 ("tpm_tis_core: Set TPM_CHIP_FLAG_IRQ before pr=
obing for interrupts").
Doesn't tpm_tis_send set this flag, and setting it here in tpm_tis_core_ini=
t short circuits what
tpm_tis_send was doing before? There is a bug report of an interrupt storm =
from a tpm on a t490s laptop
with the Fedora 31 kernel (5.3), and I'm wondering if this change could cau=
se that. Before they got
the warning about interrupts not working, and using polling instead.