On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 02:38:03PM +0200, Thiebaud Weksteen wrote: > On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 10:48 AM, Thiebaud Weksteen <tw...@google.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 10:47:50AM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > >> On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 12:00:22PM +0200, Thiebaud Weksteen wrote: > >> > >> > chip->bin_log_seqops.chip = chip; > >> > - if (chip->flags & TPM_CHIP_FLAG_TPM2) > >> > + > >> > + if (log_version == EFI_TCG2_EVENT_LOG_FORMAT_TCG_2 || > >> > + (!log_version && (chip->flags & TPM_CHIP_FLAG_TPM2))) > >> > chip->bin_log_seqops.seqops = > >> > &tpm2_binary_b_measurements_seqops; > >> > >> Lets have all the read_log_* versions return the postitive log_version > >> and get rid of the chip->flags check here. > >> > >> ie Doesn't ACPI always return the TPM 1 version? > > > > That is my understanding. Ashley, Nayna, could you confirm the format > > version expected by tpm_of? Could it be both? > > > > I've changed the returned code for ACPI but not for DeviceTree. > Without confirmation for tpm_of, I am reluctant to modify the current > behaviour.
Move the TPM_CHIP_FLAG_TPM2 check into tpm_of to keep the current behavior but still return the code.. Jason ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot _______________________________________________ tpmdd-devel mailing list tpmdd-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/tpmdd-devel
