On 15.08.2019 19:03, Oshri Alkobi wrote:
On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 8:10 PM Alexander Steffen
<Alexander.Steffen@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 18.07.2019 14:51, Eyal.Cohen@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
Hi Jarkko and Alexander,
We have made an additional code review on the TPM TIS core driver, it looks quite good and we can connect our new I2C driver to this layer.
Great :) In the meantime, I've done some experiments creating an I2C
driver based on tpm_tis_core, see
https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/11049363/ Please have a look at that
and provide your feedback (and/or use it as a basis for further
implementations).
Sorry for the late response.
Thanks Alexander, indeed it looks much simpler.
I've checked it with Nuvoton's TPM - basic TPM commands work
Nice :)
I only
had to remove the first msg from the read/write I2C transmitting
(from/to TPM_LOC_SEL), the TPM couldn't handle two register writes in
a sequence.
Actually it is more efficient to set TPM_LOC_SEL only before locality
check/request/relinquish - it is sticky.
There is one problem though: Do we assume that only the kernel driver
will communicate with the TPM or might there be something else that also
talks to the TPM?
If it is only the kernel driver, we could probably skip setting
TPM_LOC_SEL at all, since it defaults to 0 and the driver will never use
anything else. If something else does its own I2C communication with the
TPM, it might write different values to TPM_LOC_SEL at any time, causing
the kernel driver to use a different locality than intended. This was
the reason I always set TPM_LOC_SEL within the same transaction.
I still didn't manage to work with interrupts, will debug it.
Interrupt support might be broken in general at the moment, see this
thread: https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-integrity/msg08663.html
We weren't aware to the implementation of Christophe/ST which looks
good and can be complement to yours.
If no one is currently working on that, we can prepare a new patch
that is based on both.
Please let us know.
I won't have the time to do anything, at least for the next two weeks,
so feel free to pick it up.
However, there are several differences between the SPI interface and the I2C interface that will require changes to the TIS core.
At a minimum we thought of:
1. Handling TPM Localities in I2C is different
It turned out not to be that different in the end, see the code
mentioned above and my comment here:
https://patchwork.kernel.org/cover/11049365/
2. Handling I2C CRC - relevant only to I2C bus hence not supported today by TIS core
That is completely optional, so there is no need to implement it in the
beginning. Also, do you expect a huge benefit from that functionality?
Are bit flips that much more likely on I2C compared to SPI, which has no
CRC at all, but still works fine?
I2C is noisy bus with potentially more devices with larger variety
than SPI. I2C may have more than one master and may have collisions
and/or arbitration.
If multi-master usage is a concern, there are probably a lot more places
in the driver that need to be adapted to deal with concurrent
access/data corruption. For now, I'd assume a single master, similar to SPI.
Alexander
