[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20141214154003.GA13338@intel.com>
Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2014 17:40:03 +0200
From: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>
To: Stefan Berger <stefanb@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Peter Huewe <peterhuewe@....de>, Ashley Lai <ashley@...leylai.com>,
Marcel Selhorst <tpmdd@...horst.net>,
tpmdd-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
josh@...htriplett.org, christophe.ricard@...il.com,
jason.gunthorpe@...idianresearch.com, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
trousers-tech@...ts.sourceforge.net,
Will Arthur <will.c.arthur@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 8/8] tpm: TPM 2.0 FIFO Interface
On Sun, Dec 14, 2014 at 09:48:26AM -0500, Stefan Berger wrote:
> On 12/12/2014 02:46 PM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> >Detect TPM 2.0 by sending idempotent TPM 2.x command. Ordinals for
> >TPM 2.0 are higher than TPM 1.x commands so this should be fail-safe.
> >Using STS3 is unreliable because some chips just report 0xff and not
> >what the spec says.
>
> TPM TIS 1.2 can report either 0xff or 0x00 for sts3 since that part of
> register was not defined for this version but only for a later version. So,
> unless the TIS 1.3 for TPM 2.0 is broken, it should report a bit _pattern_
> (not plain 0x00 or 0xff) that you could apply the suggested mask to and
> check then.
I propose this: lets keep the bit ugly but approach for now and when
there are TPM2 FIFOs available in the market move to your workaround.
I think that would be the most reasonable middle road here.
> Stefan
/Jarkko
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists