On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 02:36:56PM +0100, Miquel Raynal wrote: > Hi Tom, > > Sorry for the delay. > > On Fri, 9 Mar 2018 07:18:40 -0500, Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote: > > > 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? > > > > I suppose this is doable, but for what I know, the effort is > consequent. TPM 2.0 are not compatible at all with TPM 1.x , the > packets exchanged at TPM level are completely different. Hence, I > think there is almost nothing that we can take from the TPM 1.x > implementation already existing in QEMU.
Ah, OK. I thought QEMU had a TPM 2.0 implementation now too, but I see I'm mistaken. > I am certain we all would benefit such a contribution, however I'm > not sure I could handle that anytime soon. > > About the series, I think it would be better that I change a macro name > ("STRINGIFY", which is wrongly named), I will send a v2 soon, can you > tell me its status otherwise? We have the usual linux/stringify.h header available, so yes, you should make use of that. And I still would like to see tests written, even if they can only be executed on $board with $TPM attached via $interface, with those 3 variables documented so that others can try it out too. Does that make sense? Thanks! -- Tom
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot