[SLOF] [PATCH v2 01/20] Add a TPM driver implementation

[Alexey Kardashevskiy]

On 11/27/2015 01:59 AM, Stefan Berger wrote:
> On 11/26/2015 12:39 AM, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote:
>> On 11/19/2015 10:58 PM, Thomas Huth wrote:
>>> On 19/11/15 12:50, Stefan Berger wrote:
>>>> On 11/18/2015 08:07 AM, Thomas Huth wrote:
>>>>> On 17/11/15 18:02, Stefan Berger wrote:
>>>>>> From: Stefan Berger <stefanb at linux.vnet.ibm.com>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This patch adds a TPM driver for the CRQ interface as used by
>>>>>> the QEMU PAPR implementation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Stefan Berger <stefanb at linux.vnet.ibm.com>
>>> [...]
>>>>>> +/**** driver structures ****/
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +struct tpm_driver tpm_drivers[TPM_NUM_DRIVERS] = {
>>>>>> +    [PAPR_DRIVER_IDX] = {
>>>>>> +        .setdurations      = spapr_vtpm_set_durations,
>>>>>> +        .probe             = spapr_vtpm_probe,
>>>>>> +        .init              = spapr_vtpm_init,
>>>>>> +        .activate          = spapr_vtpm_activate,
>>>>>> +        .ready             = spapr_vtpm_endcycle,
>>>>>> +        .senddata          = spapr_vtpm_senddata,
>>>>>> +        .transfer          = spapr_vtpm_transfer,
>>>>>> +        .waitresponseready = spapr_vtpm_waitresponseready,
>>>>>> +        .readresponse      = spapr_vtpm_readresponse,
>>>>>> +        .sha1threshold     = 100 * 1024,
>>>>>> +        .getbuffersize     = spapr_vtpm_get_buffersize,
>>>>>> +        .getstate          = spapr_vtpm_get_state,
>>>>>> +        .geterror          = spapr_vtpm_get_error,
>>>>>> +    },
>>>>>> +};
>>>>> Do you plan other TPM drivers in the near future? If not, this struct
>>>>> tpm_driver interface with all those function pointers sounds a little
>>>>> bit over-engineered to me right now.
>>>>
>>>> I think it's a nice separation and allows for other drivers if it ever
>>>> became necessary.
>>>
>>> Well, function pointers are always more difficult to read, and to debug
>>> later!
>>> And since I don't see any other TPM driver implementation coming around
>>> in the near future, I really don't think that this is necessary here.
>>
>> The very first version of this did have 2 TPM drivers so it is possible,
>> I just do not know how actual it is for pseries guests
>
> Recent JS2x blades (other than JS21) do not have the TPM, otherwise we
> would have a driver for it ...

I recall some USB TPM device mentioned back then, is that what you mean here?



-- 
Alexey