On Fri, Mar 09, 2018 at 08:53:40AM +0100, Miquel Raynal wrote: > Hi Tom, > > On Thu, 8 Mar 2018 12:20:30 -0500, Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote: > > > On Thu, Mar 08, 2018 at 04:40:03PM +0100, Miquel Raynal wrote: > > > > > Current U-Boot supports TPM v1.2 specification. The new specification > > > (v2.0) is not backward compatible and renames/introduces several > > > functions. > > > > > > This series introduces a new SPI driver following the TPM v2.0 > > > specification. It has been tested on a ST TPM but should be usable with > > > others v2.0 compliant chips. > > > > > > Then, basic functionalities are introduced one by one for the v2.0 > > > specification. The INIT command now can receive a parameter to > > > distinguish further TPMv1/TPMv2 commands. After that, the library itself > > > will know which one is pertinent and will return a special error if the > > > desired command is not supported for the selected specification. > > > > Thanks for doing all of this. Can you please enable this feature on > > sandbox and/or an x86 QEMU variant where I assume we could also then > > setup automated testing? > > > > Not sure I understand your request correctly: the TPM commands are > already available in the sandbox (I don't see what I could add), I just > extended the current set of commands. > > However, even with these commands, we won't be able to test them in a > sandbox unless with an actual device. > > I probably miss something, can you explain a bit more what you would > like?
Can we add a valid TPM via QEMU and then test it that way? If so, we should enable the TPM code on qemu-x86_64 (and, well, if we can pass it on other arches, other QEMU targets) and write some test/py/tests/ code that exercises the TPM commands. Does that make sense? -- Tom
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot
