> 1. I've got a TPM that implements vendor-specific command codes. Those > cannot be send to the TPM anymore, but are rejected with EINVAL. > >> 2. When upgrading the firmware on my TPM, it switches to a >> non-standard communication mode for the upgrade process and does not >> communicate using TPM2.0 commands during this time. Rejecting >> non-TPM2.0 commands means upgrading won't be possible anymore.
>How non standard? Is the basic header even there? Are the lengths and status >code right? >This might be an argument to add a 'raw' ioctl or something specifically for >this special case. It follows the regular TPM command syntax and looks something like 1.2 commands. Peter
