Hi Stefan, On Wed, Apr 29, 2026 at 02:15:16PM -0400, Stefan Berger wrote: > > > On 4/28/26 8:57 AM, Stefan Berger wrote: > > > > > > On 4/28/26 3:01 AM, Arun Menon wrote: > > > > > > > > > With MAX() it can now be bigger than TPM_TIS_BUFFER_MAX if the > > > > backend says > > > > so -- hm... > > > > > > TPM_TIS_BUFFER_MAX is still 4096. > > > > Oh, I had still based my patches on your TPM_TIS_BUFFER_MAX increase to > > 8192 bytes. Let me fixes this along with a few other things. I will let > > you know. > > > > I have another series that I will post now that can be applied to > > master. It's adding a test for TIS over I2C but I will need to extend > > that one also with the large transfer test case then. > > > > > > So I have resolved this issue now along with a few other things. My branch > is here: https://github.com/stefanberger/qemu-tpm/tree/work-tpm-for-11.1 > > - I have applied the i2c swtpm test case series first since it could be > easily upstreamed first > - Then your patch "migration/vmstate: Add VMState support for GByteArray" > - Then the CRB chunk + TIS extended buffer support series. I modified my > patches (last 4 in that series) to > - increased MAX_TIS_BUFFER_SIZE to 8192 > - added migration blockers dynamically for TIS whenever >4096 bytes are > either in the request or response; remove them later on again when device > goes into ready state for example > - added large transfer test also for i2c > > Please pick up those patches for v6 posting, or otherwise you can split your > v5 series up into CRB-only support for v6 and I post my (last 4) patches > later on. >
Thank you. I agree. I will post v6 as CRB-only support. The GByteArray patch is already accepted. The complex TIS changes can be posted separately later. Regarding the TIS buffer: I saw you implemented the migration blockers and 8192-byte increase in your branch. Should I discard my 'Dynamically allocate tpm-tis buffer' patch entirely, or do you want to try and adapt that logic into your TIS follow-up series later? Since your new migration blockers are based on the 4096/8192 threshold, it might be simpler to stick with the static approach for now, but let me know what you prefer. Regards, Arun Menon >
