Hi George,

On 14 October 2016 at 15:41, George McCollister george.mccollister@gmail.com wrote:

The Atmel AT97SC3204 is also TIS compliant. Modify the tpm_tis_lpc driver to check for the vid/did used by the Atmel AT97SC3204 and report an appropriate description.

Signed-off-by: George McCollister george.mccollister@gmail.com

drivers/tpm/tpm_tis_lpc.c | 37 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------- 1 file changed, 28 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/tpm/tpm_tis_lpc.c b/drivers/tpm/tpm_tis_lpc.c index b4efbb5..316993a 100644 --- a/drivers/tpm/tpm_tis_lpc.c +++ b/drivers/tpm/tpm_tis_lpc.c @@ -21,6 +21,21 @@

#define PREFIX "lpc_tpm: "

+enum i2c_chip_type {

•   SLB9635,
  

•   AT97SC3204,
  

+};

+static const char * const chip_name[] = {

•   [SLB9635] = "Infineon SLB9635 TT 1.2",
  

•   [AT97SC3204] = "Atmel AT97SC3204",
  

+};

+static const u32 chip_didvid[] = {

•   [SLB9635] = 0xb15d1,
  

•   [AT97SC3204] = 0x32041114,
  

+};

struct tpm_locality { u32 access; u8 padding0[4]; @@ -146,9 +161,9 @@ static int tis_wait_reg(struct tpm_tis_lpc_priv *priv, u32 *reg, u8 mask, static int tpm_tis_lpc_probe(struct udevice *dev) { struct tpm_tis_lpc_priv *priv = dev_get_priv(dev);

•   u32 vid, did;
    fdt_addr_t addr;
    u32 didvid;
  

•   ulong chip_type = dev_get_driver_data(dev);
  
    addr = dev_get_addr(dev);
    if (addr == FDT_ADDR_T_NONE)
  

@@ -156,15 +171,16 @@ static int tpm_tis_lpc_probe(struct udevice *dev) priv->regs = map_sysmem(addr, 0); didvid = tpm_read_word(priv, &priv->regs[0].did_vid);

•   vid = didvid & 0xffff;
  

•   did = (didvid >> 16) & 0xffff;
  

•   if (vid != 0x15d1 || did != 0xb) {
  

•   if (didvid == chip_didvid[chip_type]) {
  

•           debug("Found TPM: %s\n", chip_name[chip_type]);
  

•   } else {
  

Can you put this error clause first, so that the debug() remains where it is?

•           u32 vid, did;
  

•           vid = didvid & 0xffff;
  

•           did = (didvid >> 16) & 0xffff;
            debug("Invalid vendor/device ID %04x/%04x\n", vid, did);
            return -ENOSYS;
  

I think we should change this to -ENODEV as it is a missing device, not a missing system call. Or maybe -ENOENT?

    }

•   debug("Found TPM %s by %s\n", "SLB9635 TT 1.2", "Infineon");
  

•   return 0;
  

}

@@ -421,11 +437,13 @@ static int tpm_tis_lpc_close(struct udevice *dev)

static int tpm_tis_get_desc(struct udevice *dev, char *buf, int size) {

•   ulong chip_type = dev_get_driver_data(dev);
  

•   if (size < 50)
            return -ENOSPC;
  
  

•   return snprintf(buf, size, "1.2 TPM (vendor %s, chip %s)",
  

•                   "Infineon", "SLB9635 TT 1.2");
  

•   return snprintf(buf, size, "1.2 TPM (%s)",
  

•                   chip_name[chip_type]);
  

}

@@ -438,7 +456,8 @@ static const struct tpm_ops tpm_tis_lpc_ops = { };

static const struct udevice_id tpm_tis_lpc_ids[] = {

•   { .compatible = "infineon,slb9635lpc" },
  

•   { .compatible = "infineon,slb9635lpc", .data = SLB9635 },
  

•   { .compatible = "atmel,at97sc3204", .data = AT97SC3204 },
    { }
  

};

-- 2.9.3

Regards, Simon