Hi Miquel, > -----Original Message----- > From: Miquel Raynal [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Montag, 18. Juni 2018 11:22 > To: Hecht, Martin (Avnet Silica) <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; Roeder, Michael (Avnet Silica) > <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [U-Boot] tpm TIS TPMv2.0 > > Hi Martin, > > On Mon, 18 Jun 2018 09:13:36 +0000, "Hecht, Martin (Avnet Silica)" > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Hi Miquèl, > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Miquel Raynal [mailto:[email protected]] > > > Sent: Montag, 18. Juni 2018 10:43 > > > To: Hecht, Martin (Avnet Silica) <[email protected]> > > > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected] > > > Subject: Re: [U-Boot] tpm TIS TPMv2.0 > > > > > > Hi Martin, > > > > > > On Mon, 18 Jun 2018 08:20:20 +0000, "Hecht, Martin (Avnet Silica)" > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > Hi Miquel, > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > From: Miquel Raynal [mailto:[email protected]] > > > > > Sent: Montag, 18. Juni 2018 10:05 > > > > > To: Hecht, Martin (Avnet Silica) <[email protected]> > > > > > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected] > > > > > Subject: Re: [U-Boot] tpm TIS TPMv2.0 > > > > > > > > > > Hi Martin, > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, 15 Jun 2018 13:34:07 +0000, "Hecht, Martin (Avnet Silica)" > > > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Miquel, Simon, > > > > > > > > > > > > Is there any specific reason why the new tpm2_tis_spi_xfer > > > > > > doesn't > > > > > support full duplex? It seems we did some work in parallel but > > > > > you sent the patches earlier. Is that codes tested against an > > > > > existing TPM v2? I have a working implementation what runs on > > > > > SLB9670 including > > > full duplex. > > > > > > > > > > What do you mean exactly? > > > > > > > > > > I don't think the TPM2 protocol makes real use of full-duplex > > > > > unless for the wait state between the host command and the actual > xfer. > > > > > > > > You are right, TIS 1.3 FIFO doesn’t use full duplex in physical > > > > level. What I > > > mean is that the driver you just wrote doesn't use the xfer function > > > in that way that you can specify in and out parameters at same time. > > > I did this in my implementation what gave me an easy chance to control > the CS# of the TPM. > > > > > > Do you need this CS# handling for more advanced features? Same > > > question for the in/out xfers? > > > > > > > Can you tell me on what TPM did you test? For the SLB9670 the code > > > > doesn't work on my hardware. > > > > > > I tested with a ST33TPHF20 SPI TPM. > > > > > > I'm surprised it did not work with an SLB9670, I don't see anything > > > in the spec explaining this CS# specificity. > > > > The CS# may controls an internal state machine and the SLB9670 uses that > signal. > > Ok, can you explain what should be done (and where/when) to make it work > with the SLB9670? Please let me come back with my proposal soon. I have already the tpm running with my little different driver. There is another patch required for my SoC to setup the SPI correctly. Nevertheless one question: Why did you define another dts binding instead of using that one what is already available on the Linux kernel? There is "tcg,tpm_tis-spi" already defined.
> > Thanks, > Miquèl _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list [email protected] https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot
