Hi Peter, On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 08:47:55AM +0000, peter.hu...@infineon.com wrote: > Hi Kent, > > thanks a lot for this effort! > I really appreciate it. > > > +What: /sys/class/misc/tpmX/device/active > > +Date: April 2006 > > +KernelVersion: 2.6.17 > > +Contact: tpmdd-de...@lists.sf.net > > +Description: The "active" property prints a '1' if the TPM chip is > > accepting > > + commands. An inactive TPM chip still contains all the state of > > + an active chip (Storage Root Key, NVRAM, etc), and can be > > + visible to the OS, but will not accept commands. > > Hmm, I know this is a tricky one (enabled/activated). > maybe this would be better as: > - visible to the OS, but will not accept commands. > + visible to the OS, but will only accept a restricted set of > commands. > + See TCG specification(...) for more information.
Yeah that's more accurate. I'm just inclined to point to the design principles and structures spec here unless you have a better idea. Both have enabled/activated info scattered throughout them. Sigh. :) > > > > +What: /sys/class/misc/tpmX/device/cancel > > +Date: June 2005 > > +KernelVersion: 2.6.13 > > +Contact: tpmdd-de...@lists.sf.net > > +Description: The "cancel" property allows you to cancel the currently > > + pending TPM command. Echoing any value to cancel will call the > > + TPM vendor specific cancel operation. > > I'd go for writing instead of echoing but this might only be bike-shedding. > - pending TPM command. Echoing any value to cancel will call the > + pending TPM command. Writing any value to cancel will call the Sounds good. Thanks, Kent > > The rest is great. > Reviewed-by: Peter Huewe <peter.hu...@infineon.com> > Signed-off-by: Peter Huewe <peter.hu...@infineon.com> > > > Thanks, > Peter > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
