On Sun, Oct 09, 2016 at 04:59:15PM +0530, Nayna wrote: > > > On 10/07/2016 02:08 AM, Nayna wrote: > > > > > >On 10/01/2016 12:35 AM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > >>On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 04:34:38AM -0400, Nayna Jain wrote: > >>>Currently, read_log() has two implementations: one for ACPI platforms > >>>and the other for OF platforms. The proper one is selected at compile > >>>time using Kconfig and #ifdef in the Makefile, which is not the > >>>recommended approach. > >>> > >>>This patch removes the #ifdef in the Makefile by defining a single > >>>read_log() method, which checks for ACPI/OF event log properties at > >>>runtime. > >>> > >>>Suggested-by: Jason Gunthorpe <[email protected]> > >>>Signed-off-by: Nayna Jain <[email protected]> > >>>Reviewed-by: Jason Gunthorpe <[email protected]> > >>>--- > >>> drivers/char/tpm/Makefile | 14 ++++---------- > >>> drivers/char/tpm/tpm_acpi.c | 9 ++------- > >>> drivers/char/tpm/tpm_eventlog.c | 18 ++++++++++++++++++ > >>> drivers/char/tpm/tpm_eventlog.h | 22 +++++++++++++--------- > >>> drivers/char/tpm/tpm_of.c | 8 ++------ > >>> 5 files changed, 39 insertions(+), 32 deletions(-) > >>> > >>>diff --git a/drivers/char/tpm/Makefile b/drivers/char/tpm/Makefile > >>>index a385fb8..a05b1eb 100644 > >>>--- a/drivers/char/tpm/Makefile > >>>+++ b/drivers/char/tpm/Makefile > >>>@@ -2,16 +2,10 @@ > >>> # Makefile for the kernel tpm device drivers. > >>> # > >>> obj-$(CONFIG_TCG_TPM) += tpm.o > >>>-tpm-y := tpm-interface.o tpm-dev.o tpm-sysfs.o tpm-chip.o tpm2-cmd.o > >>>-tpm-$(CONFIG_ACPI) += tpm_ppi.o > >>>- > >>>-ifdef CONFIG_ACPI > >>>- tpm-y += tpm_eventlog.o tpm_acpi.o > >>>-else > >>>-ifdef CONFIG_TCG_IBMVTPM > >>>- tpm-y += tpm_eventlog.o tpm_of.o > >>>-endif > >>>-endif > >>>+tpm-y := tpm-interface.o tpm-dev.o tpm-sysfs.o tpm-chip.o tpm2-cmd.o \ > >>>+ tpm_eventlog.o > >>>+tpm-$(CONFIG_ACPI) += tpm_ppi.o tpm_acpi.o > >>>+tpm-$(CONFIG_OF) += tpm_of.o > >>> obj-$(CONFIG_TCG_TIS_CORE) += tpm_tis_core.o > >>> obj-$(CONFIG_TCG_TIS) += tpm_tis.o > >>> obj-$(CONFIG_TCG_TIS_SPI) += tpm_tis_spi.o > >>>diff --git a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_acpi.c b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_acpi.c > >>>index 4d6c2d7..859bdba 100644 > >>>--- a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_acpi.c > >>>+++ b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_acpi.c > >>>@@ -6,6 +6,7 @@ > >>> * Stefan Berger <[email protected]> > >>> * Reiner Sailer <[email protected]> > >>> * Kylene Hall <[email protected]> > >>>+ * Nayna Jain <[email protected]> > >>> * > >>> * Maintained by: <[email protected]> > >>> * > >>>@@ -45,7 +46,7 @@ struct acpi_tcpa { > >>> }; > >>> > >>> /* read binary bios log */ > >>>-int read_log(struct tpm_chip *chip) > >>>+int read_log_acpi(struct tpm_chip *chip) > >>> { > >>> struct acpi_tcpa *buff; > >>> acpi_status status; > >>>@@ -54,12 +55,6 @@ int read_log(struct tpm_chip *chip) > >>> struct tpm_bios_log *log; > >>> > >>> log = &chip->log; > >>>- if (log->bios_event_log != NULL) { > >>>- printk(KERN_ERR > >>>- "%s: ERROR - Eventlog already initialized\n", > >>>- __func__); > >>>- return -EFAULT; > >>>- } > >>> > >>> /* Find TCPA entry in RSDT (ACPI_LOGICAL_ADDRESSING) */ > >>> status = acpi_get_table(ACPI_SIG_TCPA, 1, > >>>diff --git a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_eventlog.c > >>>b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_eventlog.c > >>>index a8cd4a1..c327089 100644 > >>>--- a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_eventlog.c > >>>+++ b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_eventlog.c > >>>@@ -346,6 +346,24 @@ static int is_bad(void *p) > >>> return 0; > >>> } > >>> > >>>+int read_log(struct tpm_chip *chip) > >>>+{ > >>>+ int rc; > >>>+ > >>>+ if (chip->log.bios_event_log != NULL) { > >>>+ dev_dbg(&chip->dev, "%s: ERROR - Eventlog already > >>>initialized\n", > >>>+ __func__); > >>>+ return -EFAULT; > >>>+ } > >>>+ > >>>+ rc = read_log_acpi(chip); > >>>+ if ((rc == 0) || (rc == -ENOMEM)) > >>>+ return rc; > >>>+ rc = read_log_of(chip); > >>>+ return rc; > >>>+ > >>>+} > >> > >>I'm wondering if it is a better idea to leverage tpm_class_ops? This > >>would be kind of cool idea to implement this because then the decision > >>to support event log could be leveraged to the driver level. > > > >Can you please explain me this bit more ? > > > >For eg, when we say driver level.. does that mean to the level of tis, > >nuvoton ? > > > >And what type of decision ? I mean like decision to create securityfs > >setup for userspace to read eventlog ? or there are other things ? > > > > Jarkko, can you please also help me to understand here more ?
Sorry, I missed your original response. Umh, it was more like an open question and I'm not sure if it even makes sense. Maybe you can just ignore it until the next revision. /Jarkko ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot _______________________________________________ tpmdd-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/tpmdd-devel
