On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 02:12:52PM +0200, Pfau, Reinhard wrote:
Hi,
-----Original Message----- From: u-boot-bounces@lists.denx.de [mailto:u-boot-bounces@lists.denx.de] On Behalf Of Tom Rini Sent: Monday, April 22, 2013 8:37 PM To: Eibach, Dirk Cc: u-boot@lists.denx.de Subject: (Mixed security state) Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH 1/6] tpm: add AUTH1 cmds for LoadKey2 and GetPubKey
On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 01:06:40PM +0200, Dirk Eibach wrote:
From: Reinhard Pfau pfau@gdsys.de
[snip]
[snip]
/**
- TPM return codes as defined in the TCG Main specification
- (TPM Main Part 2 Structures; Specification version 1.2)
- */
+enum tpm_return_code {
- TPM_BASE = 0x00000000,
- TPM_NON_FATAL = 0x00000800,
- TPM_SUCCESS = TPM_BASE,
- /* TPM-defined fatal error codes */
- TPM_AUTHFAIL = TPM_BASE + 1,
[snip]
- TPM_BADINDEX = TPM_BASE + 2,
I don't like this form, and it's not what we usually use. It should be, roughly: enum tpm_return_code { TPM_SUCCESS = 0, /* TPM-defined fatal error codes. */ TPM_BAD_PARAMETER, TPM_AUDITFAILURE, ... /* TPM-defined non-fatal error codes. */ TPM_RETRY = 0x800, TPM_NEEDS_SELFTEST, ... }
Well, the way I wrote the constants is intentionally since the return codes are defined like this in the TCG specification. In the spec the return codes are found in a table with name and value; and the value is expressed as sum based on TPM_BASE. (See TCG published spec: "TPM Main Part 2 TPM Structures; Specification version 1.2" chapter 16 ("Return Codes").)
This way it might be easier to keep the constants in sync with (future) versions of the TCG spec :-) So I would like to keep it as it is.
OK, I pulled up the doc and I see what you mean. Yes, it's OK to do that in this case here. Thanks!