From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A475625EFBE; Sun, 14 Sep 2025 17:06:15 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1757869575; cv=none; b=uXF5krzw/6W8NB7fkEfRgCXgiCtOyJvOkNKBhrpmPpaKyqVH6klGekpbA7RAfiKFRKhs5qPib1QQ1dDr1H/LQw/Aias/pI6qdwJuw9qRcC3tNr4Gmop2dsqYQ9wSDZ+i5S8JVKDXYRmYAJdhtKpMtvX/WChzbeJKRw9nuS1curw= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1757869575; c=relaxed/simple; bh=QTWm3SlTvXKB49umrEkl2ESw+wFMXCFy0QzNstwdSrA=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=ftyCn2C9Q0wV2z6B5qluIuPs7q2Yj9Loq5c+UpmHqDDJVpy7RstH3YfLY5vJ0Id3sCbl5ZkZSHLt83wqszHmOzEJXBHgGvIb368sHGpx3TtduDTLZ7gdeHrTJQELp2n5GpekzG+wr9jxXlqZP8PX9kiO7mXfl9sIRq2FnsEJBrg= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=Vg6q5pOO; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="Vg6q5pOO" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B80E2C4CEF0; Sun, 14 Sep 2025 17:06:14 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1757869575; bh=QTWm3SlTvXKB49umrEkl2ESw+wFMXCFy0QzNstwdSrA=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=Vg6q5pOOrkbzJLe4Yk7575k9s0+3bBv2XvtrkfkiX1w6K0ZX+fqlMonsEcQtUuuTo LnJJtpMCGB6n1Zaxwaf9cUohUyFRGm5wbNxxzughRjVTzcDeR5ivj1jYLUREnSastd GuOsz1U3PfU+C6z+cEsW94mSWFUEcJAyl37jrWY+3c5V4vJW/ANONjy0IlhStirGCG WwsG94HAYOSFyKPmDiuV70FWHS+Ru4NAV0DNxF3L0Q2ZaB2gCbikZLudeQLMmo3CeR jQ7ig5fn6945HkBzN3CIvrSiuGRK6I1uOVkExSCh83D3z3INtAaN9IB3ogu7OLVD1t Tsh4FQCFJURmA== Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2025 20:06:11 +0300 From: Jarkko Sakkinen To: Alexander Wilhelm Cc: Peter Huewe , Mark Brown , linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org, linux-spi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: tpm: SLM9670 does not work on T1023 Message-ID: References: Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: On Thu, Sep 11, 2025 at 03:52:33PM +0200, Alexander Wilhelm wrote: > Hello devs, > > I'm trying to bring up the SLM9670 TPM 2.0 device connected via SPI on a QorIQ > T1023-based board. Pin control is fully configured through the RCW, so I haven't > added any additional properties in the device tree. The SPI controller accesses > the TPM using `#CS0`. > > However, the driver reads an incorrect vendor ID (0x1000000) and hangs during > the startup sequence. A logic analyzer shows that the chip select line goes high > immediately after transmitting 4 bytes, which, according to various forum > discussions, does not comply with the TPM specification. Unfortunately, I > haven't found a definitive solution to this issue. So, at least the vendor ID is bogus meaning that TPM driver is doing right thing. > > Could this be a bug in the `spi-fsl-espi` driver, or is it possibly a hardware > limitation of the T1023? I've come across some suggestions that involve using a > GPIO as an alternative chip select instead of the one provided by the SPI > controller. Can anyone confirm whether this workaround is viable? I’d prefer to > avoid a PCB redesign unless it's absolutely necessary. My first guess would be that the firmware inside TPM actually does throw a broken vendor ID but it is exactly a guess :-) I'll follow this, and please cc me also to future threads but right now I'm clueless. > > > Best regards > Alexander Wilhelm BR, Jarkko