On 8/8/2017 3:11 PM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 07, 2017 at 01:52:34PM +0200, Peter Huewe wrote:

>> Are you sure this is a good idea?
>> On lpc systems this more or less stalls the bus, including keyboard/mouse (if connected via superio lpc).
>> On which systems have you tested this?
>> Spi/Lpc? Architecture?
>> This might not be noticable for small transfers, but think about much larger transfers....
>> Imho: NACK from my side.
>> Thanks,
>> Peter
> Thanks Peter, a great insight. TPM could share the bus with other
> devices. Even if this optimizes the performance for TPM it might cause
> performance issues elsewhere.

Does anyone know of platforms where this occurs?

I suspect (but not sure) that the days of SuperIO connecting floppy drives, printer ports, and PS/2 mouse ports on the LPC bus are over, and such legacy systems will not have a TPM. Would SuperIO even support the special TPM LPC bus cycles?

Even then, the wait states of a mhz speed LPC are likely to be usec,
not noticeable for even a mouse.

Is this a reasonable assumption?

If so, to we affect TPM performance to the point where it's unusable to help a case that is unlikely to appear in current platforms?

> One more viewpoint: TCG must added the burst count for a reason (might
> be very well related what Peter said). Is ignoring it something that TCG
> recommends? Not following standard exactly in the driver code sometimes
> makes sense on *small details* but I would not say that this a small
> detail...

I checked with the TCG's device driver work group (DDWG). Both the spec editor and 3 TPM vendors - Infineon, Nuvoton, and ST Micro - agreed that ignoring burst count may incur wait states but nothing more. Operations will still be successful.

Reply via email to