Hi Stefan, On 6/16/20 4:05 PM, Stefan Berger wrote: > On 6/16/20 9:01 AM, Auger Eric wrote: >> Hi Stefan, >> >> On 6/15/20 7:11 PM, Stefan Berger wrote: >>> On 6/15/20 11:13 AM, Marc-André Lureau wrote: >>>>> diff --git a/include/hw/acpi/tpm.h b/include/hw/acpi/tpm.h >>>>> index 1a2a57a21f..063a9eb42a 100644 >>>>> --- a/include/hw/acpi/tpm.h >>>>> +++ b/include/hw/acpi/tpm.h >>>>> @@ -24,7 +24,7 @@ >>>>> #define TPM_TIS_ADDR_BASE 0xFED40000 >>>>> #define TPM_TIS_ADDR_SIZE 0x5000 >>>>> >>>>> -#define TPM_TIS_IRQ 5 >>>>> +#define TPM_TIS_IRQ 13 >>> >>> Eric, >>> >>> does this change have any negative side effects on ARM? If you prefer, >>> we can split this part here up into TPM_TIS_ISA_IRQ and TPM_TIS_SYSBUS >>> IRQ and leave the latter at '5' because we know that this is working. >> The IRQ is not advertised in dt nor ACPI on ARM. However it is >> advertised in the capability reg and in the vector. reg So I think this >> should be fixed? I guess on ARM we will pick up a completely different >> IRQ num, allocated from the platform bus slot. > > > The specification > > https://trustedcomputinggroup.org/wp-content/uploads/PC-Client-Specific-Platform-TPM-Profile-for-TPM-2p0-v1p04_r0p37_pub-1.pdf > > > declares several fields in the Interface Capability Register (table 23, > pdf page 89) to be mandatory and they must be set to '1'. So I would not > want to touch those. We can set the interrupt vector register to '0' in > case interrupts are not supported. Following the spec 0 means that no > interrupts are supported. I will now split TPM_TIS_IRQ into > TPM_TIS_ISA_IRQ and TPM_TIS_SYSBUS_IRQ and will in the end set > TPM_TIS_SYSBUS_IRQ to 'disabled', indicating that IRQs are not > supported, though they should work even though on ARM there may not be a > driver to test this with. Does this sound ok?
Yes it does. Thanks Eric > > > Stefan > > >> >> Thanks >> >> Eric >>> Stefan >>> >>> >>>>> #define TPM_TIS_NUM_LOCALITIES 5 /* per spec */ >>>>> #define TPM_TIS_LOCALITY_SHIFT 12 >>>>> -- >>>>> 2.24.1 >>>>> > >
