From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.3 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF2DAC433FF for ; Fri, 2 Aug 2019 19:43:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BAC2920B7C for ; Fri, 2 Aug 2019 19:43:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2406426AbfHBTne (ORCPT ); Fri, 2 Aug 2019 15:43:34 -0400 Received: from mga11.intel.com ([192.55.52.93]:6759 "EHLO mga11.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S2405999AbfHBTne (ORCPT ); Fri, 2 Aug 2019 15:43:34 -0400 X-Amp-Result: UNKNOWN X-Amp-Original-Verdict: FILE UNKNOWN X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False Received: from orsmga003.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.27]) by fmsmga102.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 02 Aug 2019 12:43:33 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.64,339,1559545200"; d="scan'208";a="175688182" Received: from psathya-mobl1.ger.corp.intel.com (HELO localhost) ([10.252.36.242]) by orsmga003.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 02 Aug 2019 12:43:25 -0700 Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2019 22:43:24 +0300 From: Jarkko Sakkinen To: Stephen Boyd Cc: Alexander Steffen , Peter Huewe , Andrey Pronin , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Jason Gunthorpe , Arnd Bergmann , Greg Kroah-Hartman , linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org, Duncan Laurie , Guenter Roeck Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 5/6] tpm: add driver for cr50 on SPI Message-ID: <20190802194324.i244f32h4hakj35p@linux.intel.com> References: <20190716224518.62556-1-swboyd@chromium.org> <20190716224518.62556-6-swboyd@chromium.org> <5d2f7daf.1c69fb81.c0b13.c3d4@mx.google.com> <5d2f955d.1c69fb81.35877.7018@mx.google.com> <5d30b649.1c69fb81.f440e.9a0a@mx.google.com> <1bb8d417-3199-7aff-ad60-b25464502cb3@infineon.com> <5d430cfb.1c69fb81.9480d.0d81@mx.google.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5d430cfb.1c69fb81.9480d.0d81@mx.google.com> Organization: Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - Westendinkatu 7, 02160 Espoo User-Agent: NeoMutt/20180716 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Aug 01, 2019 at 09:02:02AM -0700, Stephen Boyd wrote: > Quoting Alexander Steffen (2019-07-19 00:53:00) > > On 18.07.2019 20:11, Stephen Boyd wrote: > > > Quoting Alexander Steffen (2019-07-18 09:47:22) > > >> On 17.07.2019 23:38, Stephen Boyd wrote: > > >>> Quoting Stephen Boyd (2019-07-17 12:57:34) > > >>>> Quoting Alexander Steffen (2019-07-17 05:00:06) > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Can't the code be shared more explicitly, e.g. by cr50_spi wrapping > > >>>>> tpm_tis_spi, so that it can intercept the calls, execute the additional > > >>>>> actions (like waking up the device), but then let tpm_tis_spi do the > > >>>>> common work? > > >>>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> I suppose the read{16,32} and write32 functions could be reused. I'm not > > >>>> sure how great it will be if we combine these two drivers, but I can > > >>>> give it a try today and see how it looks. > > >>>> > > >>> > > >>> Here's the patch. I haven't tested it besides compile testing. > > > > > > The code seems to work but I haven't done any extensive testing besides > > > making sure that the TPM responds to pcr reads and some commands like > > > reading random numbers. > > > > > >> > > >> Thanks for providing this. Makes it much easier to see what the actual > > >> differences between the devices are. > > >> > > >> Do we have a general policy on how to support devices that are very > > >> similar but need special handling in some places? Not duplicating the > > >> whole driver just to change a few things definitely seems like an > > >> improvement (and has already been done in the past, as with > > >> TPM_TIS_ITPM_WORKAROUND). But should all the code just be added to > > >> tpm_tis_spi.c? Or is there some way to keep a clearer separation, > > >> especially when (in the future) we have multiple devices that all have > > >> their own set of deviations from the spec? > > >> > > > > > > If you have any ideas on how to do it please let me know. At this point, > > > I'd prefer if the maintainers could provide direction on what they want. > > > > Sure, I'd expect Jarkko will say something once he's back from vacation. > > > > Should I just resend this patch series? I haven't attempted to make the > i2c driver changes, but at least the SPI driver changes seem good enough > to resend. Go ahead. /Jarkko