Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
IronPort-SDR: ycYDfh51yk3XA4SDNm8wm9Xb+CH5Ymlu/etbWTuf5q22VDWbMw8rvjkd3h3vJpCq8cvRq+kOWt
 cFEp1YHD4L+g==
IronPort-SDR: wnuCg7EZL+S235EQiqA53//VHRIqAQHtHmuZ6D/ahhN3pVSm9Ls/Cua9npkcFGQd9+R72RSXP0
 NwYpTxKCErNg==
Date:   Tue, 23 Jun 2020 01:02:08 +0300
From:   Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>
To:     amirmizi6@gmail.com
Cc:     Eyal.Cohen@nuvoton.com, oshrialkoby85@gmail.com,
        alexander.steffen@infineon.com, robh+dt@kernel.org,
        peterhuewe@gmx.de, christophe-h.richard@st.com, jgg@ziepe.ca,
        arnd@arndb.de, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org,
        devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org, oshri.alkoby@nuvoton.com,
        tmaimon77@gmail.com, gcwilson@us.ibm.com, kgoldman@us.ibm.com,
        Dan.Morav@nuvoton.com, oren.tanami@nuvoton.com,
        shmulik.hager@nuvoton.com, amir.mizinski@nuvoton.com,
        Christophe Ricard <christophe-h.ricard@st.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v11 3/8] tpm: tpm_tis: Add retry in case of protocol
 failure or data integrity (on I2C only) failure.
Message-ID: <20200622220208.GF22727@linux.intel.com>
References: <20200618134344.243537-1-amirmizi6@gmail.com>
 <20200618134344.243537-4-amirmizi6@gmail.com>
 <20200622215922.GE22727@linux.intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200622215922.GE22727@linux.intel.com>
Organization: Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - Westendinkatu 7, 02160 Espoo
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 12:59:33AM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 04:43:38PM +0300, amirmizi6@gmail.com wrote:
> > From: Amir Mizinski <amirmizi6@gmail.com>
> > 
> > Added a retry mechanism on any protocol error. In addition, a retry is
> > added in case of a data integrity issue in the I2C bus protocol. The check
> > is performed after sending a command to the TPM and after receiving a
> > response from the TPM.
> 
> No chance to merge this without reasoning why on any protocol error we
> should retry. It's not reasoned here. Unfotunately, with this premise I
> cannot merge this.

Additional remark: you should split the retry mechanism and callback
addition to separate commits as they must be reasoned separately. See
the section one in:

https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/v4.17/process/submitting-patches.html

"If your changes produce a lot of deltas, you need to split them into
individual patches which modify things in logical stages; see 3)
Separate your changes. This will facilitate review by other kernel
developers, very important if you want your patch accepted."

/Jarkko