On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 02:36:56PM +0100, Miquel Raynal wrote:
Hi Tom,
Sorry for the delay.
On Fri, 9 Mar 2018 07:18:40 -0500, Tom Rini trini@konsulko.com wrote:
On Fri, Mar 09, 2018 at 08:53:40AM +0100, Miquel Raynal wrote:
Hi Tom,
On Thu, 8 Mar 2018 12:20:30 -0500, Tom Rini trini@konsulko.com wrote:
On Thu, Mar 08, 2018 at 04:40:03PM +0100, Miquel Raynal wrote:
Current U-Boot supports TPM v1.2 specification. The new specification (v2.0) is not backward compatible and renames/introduces several functions.
This series introduces a new SPI driver following the TPM v2.0 specification. It has been tested on a ST TPM but should be usable with others v2.0 compliant chips.
Then, basic functionalities are introduced one by one for the v2.0 specification. The INIT command now can receive a parameter to distinguish further TPMv1/TPMv2 commands. After that, the library itself will know which one is pertinent and will return a special error if the desired command is not supported for the selected specification.
Thanks for doing all of this. Can you please enable this feature on sandbox and/or an x86 QEMU variant where I assume we could also then setup automated testing?
Not sure I understand your request correctly: the TPM commands are already available in the sandbox (I don't see what I could add), I just extended the current set of commands.
However, even with these commands, we won't be able to test them in a sandbox unless with an actual device.
I probably miss something, can you explain a bit more what you would like?
Can we add a valid TPM via QEMU and then test it that way? If so, we should enable the TPM code on qemu-x86_64 (and, well, if we can pass it on other arches, other QEMU targets) and write some test/py/tests/ code that exercises the TPM commands. Does that make sense?
I suppose this is doable, but for what I know, the effort is consequent. TPM 2.0 are not compatible at all with TPM 1.x , the packets exchanged at TPM level are completely different. Hence, I think there is almost nothing that we can take from the TPM 1.x implementation already existing in QEMU.
Ah, OK. I thought QEMU had a TPM 2.0 implementation now too, but I see I'm mistaken.
I am certain we all would benefit such a contribution, however I'm not sure I could handle that anytime soon.
About the series, I think it would be better that I change a macro name ("STRINGIFY", which is wrongly named), I will send a v2 soon, can you tell me its status otherwise?
We have the usual linux/stringify.h header available, so yes, you should make use of that. And I still would like to see tests written, even if they can only be executed on $board with $TPM attached via $interface, with those 3 variables documented so that others can try it out too. Does that make sense? Thanks!