On Fri, Dec 05, 2014 at 04:01:01PM +0100, Peter Huewe wrote: > > > > > Am Donnerstag, 4. Dezember 2014, 06:55:18 schrieb Jarkko Sakkinen: > > > > From: Will Arthur <will.c.arthur@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > Detect TPM 2.0 by using the extended STS (STS3) register. For TPM 2.0, > > > > instead of calling tpm_get_timeouts(), assign duration and timeout > > > > values defined in the TPM 2.0 PTP specification. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Will Arthur <will.c.arthur@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > Signed-off-by: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > > > + sts3 = ioread8(chip->vendor.iobase + TPM_STS3(1)); > > > > + if ((sts3 & TPM_STS3_TPM2_FAM) == TPM_STS3_TPM2_FAM) > > > > + chip->flags = TPM_CHIP_FLAG_TPM2; > > > > + > > > > > > > > > > > > When loading tpm_tis force=1 with my tpm1.2 chip on a machine without bios > > > integration, it fets detected as a TPM2.0 chip :/ > > > > > > sudo rmmod tpm_tis > > > # modprobe tpm_tis force=1 > > > modprobe: ERROR: could not insert 'tpm_tis': No such device > > > # dmesg > > > [ 263.903828] tpm_tis tpm_tis: 2.0 TPM (device-id 0xB, rev-id 16) > > > [ 263.948049] tpm_tis tpm_tis: A TPM error (10) occurred continue selftest > > > [ 263.948120] tpm_tis tpm_tis: TPM self test failed > > > > > > > > > sts3 is reported as 0xff from my TPM1.2 > > > > > > > > > Hmm, > > my TPM2.0 chip also reports sts3 as 0xff (when loading with force=1 on a > > machine without bios integration) > > > > [ 307.095344] sts3 ff > > [ 307.095366] tpm_tis tpm_tis: 2.0 TPM (device-id 0x1A, rev-id 16) > > [ 307.140047] tpm_tis tpm_tis: A TPM error (256) occurred continue selftest > > [ 307.140056] tpm_tis tpm_tis: TPM self test failed > > > You are reading "sts3" - before requesting the locality and thus > it returns 0xff for a TPM20 chip as well. > --> You have to have an active locality first. > > > For a TPM2.0 0xFF is not a valid value (if active locality is > set), since reading commandCancel and resetEstablishment bit > always return 0 on reads (according to spec). > > --> 0xFF should be treated as a TPM1.2 (older tpms with TIS 1.2) > --> 0x04 should be treated as TPM 2.0 > --> 0x08 should be treated as TPM1.2 (newer tpms with TIS1.3 enhanced) Correct. I discussed with some people and verified the reason to be such that if firmware does nothing, the locality is unopened. I have access today to similar setup and can fix this regression and verify my fix. Thanks for pointing this out! > Thanks, > Peter /Jarkko -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-api" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
