lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2023]   [Feb]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRE: [Patch V3 1/3] tpm_tis-spi: Support hardware wait polling
Date
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
> Sent: 24 February 2023 21:22
> To: Krishna Yarlagadda <kyarlagadda@nvidia.com>
> Cc: robh+dt@kernel.org; peterhuewe@gmx.de; jgg@ziepe.ca;
> jarkko@kernel.org; krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org; linux-
> spi@vger.kernel.org; linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org; linux-
> integrity@vger.kernel.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org;
> thierry.reding@gmail.com; Jonathan Hunter <jonathanh@nvidia.com>;
> Sowjanya Komatineni <skomatineni@nvidia.com>; Laxman Dewangan
> <ldewangan@nvidia.com>
> Subject: Re: [Patch V3 1/3] tpm_tis-spi: Support hardware wait polling
>
> On Fri, Feb 24, 2023 at 02:16:27PM +0000, Krishna Yarlagadda wrote:
>
> > > > > > + spi_bus_lock(phy->spi_device->master);
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > + while (len) {
>
> > > > > Why?
>
> > > > TPM supports max 64B in single transaction. Loop to send rest of it.
>
> > > No, why is there a bus lock?
>
> > Bus lock to avoid other clients to be accessed between TPM transfers.
>
> That's what a bus lock does but what would be the problem if something
> else sent a message between messages? Note that a message will always
> be sent atomically.
QSPI has multi-chip-select support. Idea was to prevent transfers from both
devices at the same time. But it should be fine if it is single message.
I will verify with bus lock removed.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2023-03-27 00:35    [W:0.044 / U:0.144 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site