On Thu, Feb 17, 2022 at 11:47:21AM +0000, Dmitrii Okunev wrote: > Hello! > > As far as I see the patch wasn't merged. And I see that this is the > only unsolved thread in the discussion: > > On Thu, 2013-05-16 at 18:03 +0200, Pavel Machek wrote: > > On Tue 2013-05-14 01:24:43, Qiaowei Ren wrote: > > > These interfaces are located in > > > /sys/devices/platform/intel_txt/config, > > > and including totally 37 files, providing access to Intel TXT > > > configuration registers. > > > > This looks like very wrong interface... equivalent of /dev/mem. > > As an active user of these registers I hope it will be merged, so I > would like to improve this patch (or rewrite it from scratch) to make > that happen. Otherwise one have to do hackery around `/dev/mem`, which > also creates problems with proper access control. > > To be able to improve the patch, could somebody clarify why exactly > this is a "very wrong interface"? > > > > +What: /sys/devices/platform/intel_txt/config/STS_raw > > > +Date: May 2013 > > > +KernelVersion: 3.9 > > > +Contact: "Qiaowei Ren" <qiaowei.ren@xxxxxxxxx> > > > +Description: TXT.STS is the general status register. This read- > > > only register > > > + is used by AC modules and the MLE to get the status > > > of various > > > + Intel TXT features. > > > > This is not enough to allow people to understand what this > > does/should > > do, nor does it allow (for example) ARM people to implement something > > compatible. > > > > Is there specific reason why "better" interface is impossible? > > I would love to reuse Intel's public documentation [1] to provide a > proper description (with bit layout of the value). > > [1] https://cdrdv2.intel.com/v1/dl/getContent/315168 > > > [...], nor does it allow (for example) ARM people to > > implement something compatible. > > Do I understand correctly that a proper documentation of the registers > solves the problem? > > > Is there specific reason why "better" interface is impossible? > > What are specific problems with the current interface? What do you mean by "current" here? You are referring to an email from 2013, 9 years ago. If you want to propose the change again, correctly update the patch and submit it that way. thanks, greg k-h
