On Sun, Dec 02, 2018 at 10:23:46AM -0500, Mimi Zohar wrote: > On Fri, 2018-11-30 at 15:35 -0800, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > > Hi > > > > Some things that came up at LSS. > > > > First, would it be time to drop 1.1b bits? What advantages this would > > bring? AFAIK Peter is a strong supporter of this. > > > > In the hall way discussions, I talked with Tomas Winkler that it would > > make sense to add CONFIG_TCG_TPM1 flag to completely leave out all TPM > > 1.x bits from the kernel. > > > > TPM 1.x stuff is not exactly legacy but especially on IoT does not make > > sense to carry that code with. > > New systems might be shipping with only TPM 2.0, but it still needs to > be supported for existing systems, probably for quite a while. Having > the option to build the kernel with TPM 1.2, TPM 2.0 or both, is > acceptable. I guess it would be sufficient to just have an option to compile TPM 1.x out for starters as the real use case is devices with fTPM. Hard to see much benefit on supporting compiling TPM 2.0 support out. Obviously, TCG_TPM1 would be by default off. /Jarkko
