Hi Miquel,
On 6 June 2018 at 23:38, Miquel Raynal miquel.raynal@bootlin.com wrote:
Hello,
Sorry for the delay.
On Sat, 2 Jun 2018 10:15:17 -0600, Simon Glass sjg@chromium.org wrote:
Hi Tom,
On 1 June 2018 at 11:55, Tom Rini trini@konsulko.com wrote:
On Fri, Jun 01, 2018 at 09:25:19AM -0600, Simon Glass wrote:
+Miquel due to sandbox TPM issue
Hi Tom,
On 25 May 2018 at 06:27, Tom Rini trini@konsulko.com wrote:
In order to have the test.py tests for TPMv2 run automatically we need to have one of our sandbox builds use TPMv2 rather than TPMv1. Switch sandbox_flattree over to this style of TPM.
The problem seems to be that the sandbox driver is only built with either TPMv1 or TPMv2. It needs to be able to build with both, so we can run tests with both.
Right. But we don't have any run-time automatic tests for TPMv1 as the 'tpm test' command needs to be done manually, at least today (unless I'm missing something under test/py/tests/). And we can't (functionally in real uses) have both TPM types available. Perhaps we should make TPMv2 the default for sandbox? All of the TPMv1 code will still be getting build-time exercised due to platforms with TPMv1 on them.
I'll take a look at this. It should actually be quite easy to have two TPMs in sandbox, one v1 and one v2. At least I don't know of any impediment.
It really doesn't make any sense to have build-time branches for sandbox.
We currently have:
sandbox - should be used for most tests sandbox64 - special build that forces a 64-bit host sandbox_flattree - builds with dev_read_...() functions defined as inline. We need this build so that we can test those inline functions, and we cannot build with both the inline functions and the non-inline functions since they are named the same sandbox_noblk - builds without CONFIG_BLK, which means the legacy block drivers are used. We cannot use both the legacy and driver-model block drivers since they implement the same functions sandbox_spl - builds sandbox with SPL support, so you can run spl/u-boot-spl and it will start up and then load ./u-boot. We could probably remove this and add SPL support to the vanilla sandbox build, since people can still run ./u-boot directly
At present there are unnecessary config differences between these builds. This is explained by the fact that it is a pain for people to have to add configs separately to each defconfig. But we should probably make them more common. I will take a look.
OK.
What do you think about dropping sandbox_spl and make sandbox build SPL? It does take slightly longer to build, perhaps 25%.
That's fine with me.
Cc: Simon Glass sjg@chromium.org Signed-off-by: Tom Rini trini@konsulko.com
I'm tempted to switch the main sandbox target over instead as I don't quite see where we're running the tpm1.x tests automatically. Would that be a better idea?
Miquel, can we adjust the code to build both TPMv1 and v2 for sandbox, and select at run-time?
I thought we had talked about that before and couldn't easily? One thing I am a bit wary of is adding indirection for build coverage sake.
Yes, I am hoping that it is just different drivers with the same API but perhaps I am going to be disappointed.
Indeed, both versions share the same 'architecture' but quite a few structures/functions are defined differently for each TPM flavour in different files. What makes the magic are the #ifdef TPM_V1 #else #endif blocks around includes, making them mutually exclusive.
Choice has been made not to use both flavours at the same time in the second series, when I clearly made a separation between v1 code and v2 code. Trying to compile them both with just some Kconfig hacks would simply not work IMHO.
My apologies for not being helpful at all... As Tom said, there are no tests running on v1 code so maybe it's better to exercise v2 code in Sandbox and let people compile-test the former on their own?
I had a play with this and it does not seem too tricky.
With a bit of fiddling I got it to build except for this:
/home/sjg/c/src/third_party/u-boot/files/cmd/tpm-v2.c:324: multiple definition of `get_tpm_commands'
I think if you adjust it to check the driver version (v1 or v2), then you can use either the v1 or v2 command set. You could move the get_tpm_commands function into the uclass so it can check the driver. As to whether the driver is v1 or v2, I wonder if the driver could set a 'version' flag in tpm_chip_priv() ?
I really don't like the idea of having mutually exclusive code in driver model, so it would be good to fix this.
Regards, Simon