[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20171129175738.pim7is5zc3wmult6@linux.intel.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2017 19:57:38 +0200
From: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>
To: Javier Martinez Canillas <javierm@...hat.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Peter Huewe <peterhuewe@....de>,
Jerry Snitselaar <jsnitsel@...hat.com>,
Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>,
Philip Tricca <philip.b.tricca@...el.com>,
linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org,
William Roberts <william.c.roberts@...el.com>,
James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] tpm: return a TPM_RC_COMMAND_CODE response if a
command isn't implemented
On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 12:08:46PM +0100, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
> +#define TPM2_RC_LAYER_SHIFT 16
> +#define TPM2_RESMGRTPM_RC_LAYER (11 << TPM2_RC_LAYER_SHIFT)
I got this spec from Philip [1].
Couple of remarks:
* What is the difference between TSS2_RESMGR_RC_LAYER and
TSS2_RESMGR_TPM_RC_LAYER?
* Should the driver code use TSS2 or TPM2 prefix?
[1] https://trustedcomputinggroup.org/wp-content/uploads/TCG-TSS-2.0-Overview-and-Common-Structures-Specification-Version-0.90-Revision-02.pdf
/Jarkko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists