On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 10:57 PM, Stefan Berger <stef...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > On 04/01/2011 02:14 PM, Blue Swirl wrote: >> >> On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 10:42 PM, Stefan Berger >> <stef...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: >>> >>> The TPM interface (tpm_tis) needs to be explicitly enabled via >>> ./configure --enable-tpm. This restricts the building of the >>> TPM support to i386 and x86_64 targets since both backends I know >>> of, the Xen backend and the libtpms-based backend, will likely only >>> be available for these targets, at least initially. The list can be >>> easily extend. This measure prevents that one will end up with support >>> for a frontend but no available backend. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Stefan Berger<stef...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> >>> >>> Index:qemu/Makefile.target >>> =================================================================== >>> --- >>> Makefile.target | 7 +++++++ >>> configure | 20 ++++++++++++++++++++ >>> 2 files changed, 27 insertions(+) >>> >>> Index: qemu-git/Makefile.target >>> =================================================================== >>> --- qemu-git.orig/Makefile.target >>> +++ qemu-git/Makefile.target >>> @@ -303,6 +303,13 @@ obj-sparc-y += cs4231.o eccmemctl.o sbi. >>> >>> # GRLIB >>> obj-sparc-y += grlib_gptimer.o grlib_irqmp.o grlib_apbuart.o >>> + >>> +ifeq ($(TARGET_ARCH),$(filter $(TARGET_ARCH),i386 x86_64)) >> >> The ifeq above is not needed since the line below uses obj-i386. >> > Will remove. >>> >>> + >>> +obj-i386-$(CONFIG_TPM) += tpm_tis.o >>> + >>> +endif >>> + >>> endif >>> >>> obj-arm-y = integratorcp.o versatilepb.o arm_pic.o arm_timer.o >>> Index: qemu-git/configure >>> =================================================================== >>> --- qemu-git.orig/configure >>> +++ qemu-git/configure >>> @@ -175,6 +175,7 @@ trace_backend="nop" >>> trace_file="trace" >>> spice="" >>> rbd="" >>> +tpm="no" >>> >>> # parse CC options first >>> for opt do >>> @@ -708,6 +709,8 @@ for opt do >>> ;; >>> --kerneldir=*) kerneldir="$optarg" >>> ;; >>> + --enable-tpm) tpm="yes" >>> + ;; >>> --with-pkgversion=*) pkgversion=" ($optarg)" >>> ;; >>> --disable-docs) docs="no" >>> @@ -921,6 +924,7 @@ echo " Default >>> echo " --disable-spice disable spice" >>> echo " --enable-spice enable spice" >>> echo " --enable-rbd enable building the rados block device >>> (rbd)" >>> +echo " --enable-tpm enables an emulated TPM" >>> echo "" >>> echo "NOTE: The object files are built at the place where configure is >>> launched" >>> exit 1 >>> @@ -2540,6 +2544,7 @@ echo "Trace output file $trace_file-<pid >>> echo "spice support $spice" >>> echo "rbd support $rbd" >>> echo "xfsctl support $xfs" >>> +echo "TPM support $tpm" >>> >>> if test $sdl_too_old = "yes"; then >>> echo "-> Your SDL version is too old - please upgrade to have SDL >>> support" >>> @@ -3324,6 +3329,21 @@ if test "$gprof" = "yes" ; then >>> fi >>> fi >>> >>> +if test "$linux" = "yes"&& test "$tpm" = "yes"; then >>> + has_tpm=0 >>> + if test "$target_softmmu" = "yes" ; then >>> + case "$TARGET_BASE_ARCH" in >>> + i386) >>> + has_tpm=1 >> >> This is not a real compile test, please try to build a dummy program >> that depends on TPM headers like for example preadv probe. Then it is >> not needed to check for Linux or i386 explicitly. > > At this point there is no compile test needed since all code is 'there'. > It's merely adding the front-end,i.e., the TPM TIS emulation to be compiled.
If the basic device (without the tpms-devel library) can be built on any OS, the flag should go to default-configs/*86*-softmmu.mak. > The (libtpms-based) backend is then added later in patch [9/9]. There you > then find this here: > > if test "$has_tpm" = "1"; then > + if test -r /usr/include/libtpms/tpm_library.h ; then Here you make assumptions on the header file location, but it could be in /usr/local, /opt or somewhere where the cross compiler happens to find it. Please just do the compile test. > + echo "CONFIG_TPM_BUILTIN=y">> $config_target_mak > + fi > echo "CONFIG_TPM=y">> $config_host_mak > fi > fi > > > So this is then trying to test for the libtpms-devel package, and if found, > adds the tpm_builtin.c to the build. > Now did it look wrong for patch 4 and it does make sense in combination with > patch 9? The test should be added when the code which uses the library is added.