On Tue, 9 Nov 2021 at 10:42, <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 11/4/21 3:12 AM, Mathew McBride wrote: > > While doing bringup/rebase for the Ten64 I did some troubleshooting > > for the tpm (v1.2, NOT tpm2) command which did not appear to function, > > despite the Linux driver and tools (tcsd) working on the same board. > > > > Evidently the Atmel TPM driver hasn't kept up with various step > > changes in the I2C and TPM stacks, and while TPMv1.2 is quite > > dated to TPMv2 it would be nice to make some use of the hardware > > that is there. > > (Admittedly I would love to replace our hardware TPM with an fTPM > > but that is a project for another day) > > > > There are also subcommands in tpm-v1 which also have been > > missed in changes to the TPMv1 API and are fixed in this patchset. > > > > I have checked that this set isn't impacted by Ilias' TPM cleanup > > series[1] which only touches TPMv2. > > > > [1] - > > http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/uboot/cover/[email protected]/ > > > > Mathew McBride (6): > > cmd: tpm-v1: fix compile error in TPMv1 list resources command > > cmd: tpm-v1: fix load_key_by_sha1 compile errors > > drivers: tpm: atmel_twi: drop non-DM_I2C compatibility > > drivers: tpm: atmel_twi: do not use an offset byte > > drivers: tpm: atmel_twi: implement get_desc operation > > drivers: tpm: atmel_twi: fix printf specifier compile warning > > > > cmd/tpm-v1.c | 17 +++++++++++------ > > drivers/tpm/tpm_atmel_twi.c | 22 +++++++--------------- > > lib/tpm-v1.c | 4 ++-- > > 3 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-) > > > > -- > > 2.30.1 > > > > Hello Mathew, Ilias, > > Even if this series touches a Microchip driver/part that is not part of > the at91 architecture, the patches are in my queue. > I can take them through at91 tree if this is the way to go.
I am fine with that > Is there another custodian tree that is dedicated for such kind of > drivers? or more specific ? As far as I know there isn't. > > Simon, your opinion on this ? > > P.S. some of the patches look to be fixes most likely, so I guess it > would be more likely to have them as fixes for 2022.01 release ? Yes all of those look good. I had a minor comment on one of those, but we can always add more info on the TPM later. Thanks /Ilias > > Thanks, > Eugen
