On Tue, 6 Oct 2026 at 00:35, Michael Haener <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Ilias, > > On Mon, 5 Oct 2026 at 12:08, Ilias Apalodimas <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Yeah, I'm not particularly glued on "let's make it on probe" either. I > > am fine with the event as well. I just need a proper justification for > > it, because initializing it during probe seems much simpler. > > I looked at what the probe variant would need: > > 1. Nothing probes the TPM on a plain booti/bootm, so post_probe() alone > does not help. The uclass would also need DM_FLAG_PROBE_AFTER_BIND. > > 2. dm_autoprobe() runs in SPL and before and after relocation. With a > bootph-* tagged TPM node (e.g. chromebook_coral) the self-test would > run in each phase unless extra conditions are added, whereas the > event runs exactly once. > > 3. The event is purely additive. With the option disabled nothing > changes, and the uclass, the existing callers (tpm command, > efi_tcg2, tpm_tcg2) and the tests stay as they are. > > Having looked at both, I would personally prefer to keep the event > version.
Fair enough, I guess you'll send a new version incorporating Simon's comments? Thanks /Ilias > > Regards, > Michael
