| Message ID | 20211104011253.4401-1-matt@traverse.com.au |
|---|---|
| Headers | show |
| Series | Fix Atmel/Microchip TPMv1.2 issues | expand |
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/20211103150910.69732-1-ilias.apalodimas@linaro.org/ > > 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. Is there another custodian tree that is dedicated for such kind of drivers? or more specific ? 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 ? Thanks, Eugen
On Tue, 9 Nov 2021 at 10:42, <Eugen.Hristev@microchip.com> 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/20211103150910.69732-1-ilias.apalodimas@linaro.org/ > > > > 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
Eugen, Will this go through your tree? I recently picked up maintainership of the TPM drivers, so I could send them through that. Up to you. Cheers /Ilias On Tue, 9 Nov 2021 at 10:57, Ilias Apalodimas <ilias.apalodimas@linaro.org> wrote: > > On Tue, 9 Nov 2021 at 10:42, <Eugen.Hristev@microchip.com> 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/20211103150910.69732-1-ilias.apalodimas@linaro.org/ > > > > > > 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
On 11/17/21 12:35 PM, Ilias Apalodimas wrote: > Eugen, > > Will this go through your tree? I recently picked up maintainership > of the TPM drivers, so I could send them through that. Up to you. > Hi , The patch series by Mathew is now assigned to Tom Rini. You picked maintainership, that's fine, but you have a dedicated custodian tree ? Tom, do you wish to handle these patches or you wish to reassign them to me and take them through at91 tree ? Thanks, Eugen > Cheers > /Ilias > > On Tue, 9 Nov 2021 at 10:57, Ilias Apalodimas > <ilias.apalodimas@linaro.org> wrote: >> >> On Tue, 9 Nov 2021 at 10:42, <Eugen.Hristev@microchip.com> 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/20211103150910.69732-1-ilias.apalodimas@linaro.org/ >>>> >>>> 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
On Wed, Nov 17, 2021 at 11:09:05AM +0000, Eugen.Hristev@microchip.com wrote: > On 11/17/21 12:35 PM, Ilias Apalodimas wrote: > > Eugen, > > > > Will this go through your tree? I recently picked up maintainership > > of the TPM drivers, so I could send them through that. Up to you. > > > > Hi , > > The patch series by Mathew is now assigned to Tom Rini. You picked > maintainership, that's fine, but you have a dedicated custodian tree ? > > Tom, do you wish to handle these patches or you wish to reassign them to > me and take them through at91 tree ? So, Ilias is getting set up with a tpm custodian tree now. The question I had was if you wanted these via the atmel tree, or would be OK with them coming via the TPM tree.
> So, Ilias is getting set up with a tpm custodian tree now. The question >I had was if you wanted these via the atmel tree, or would be OK with >them coming via the TPM tree. It's fine for me to take them through TPM tree. They are not in fact related to at91 architecture, it's another Atmel division that was creating these products. I was willing to take them because there wasn't a better place for them, but if it's a TPM tree now, please go ahead with it. Eugen (P.S. when replying to your e-mails , thunderbird somehow deletes everything because it sees your e-mail as an attachment)