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:   Tue, 12 Nov 2019 22:07:03 +0200
From:   Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>
To:     Stefan Berger <stefanb@linux.ibm.com>,
        linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: question about setting TPM_CHIP_FLAG_IRQ in tpm_tis_core_init
Message-ID: <20191112200703.GB11213@linux.intel.com>
References: <20191112033637.kxotlhm6mtr5irvd@cantor>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20191112033637.kxotlhm6mtr5irvd@cantor>
Organization: Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - Westendinkatu 7, 02160 Espoo
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 08:36:37PM -0700, Jerry Snitselaar wrote:
> Question about 1ea32c83c699 ("tpm_tis_core: Set TPM_CHIP_FLAG_IRQ
> before probing for interrupts").  Doesn't tpm_tis_send set this flag,
> and setting it here in tpm_tis_core_init 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 cause that. Before they got the
> warning about interrupts not working, and using polling instead.

Looks like it. Stefan?

/Jarkko