----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jarkko Sakkinen" <[email protected]> > To: "Jerry Snitselaar" <[email protected]>, "gang wei" <[email protected]> > Cc: "Jarkko Sakkinen" <[email protected]>, > [email protected], > [email protected], "Peter Huewe" <[email protected]>, > "Marcel Selhorst" <[email protected]>, > "Jason Gunthorpe" <[email protected]>, "open list" > <[email protected]> > Sent: Sunday, March 26, 2017 3:52:39 AM > Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] tpm_crb: request and relinquish locality 0 > > On Sat, Mar 25, 2017 at 09:52:11PM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 11:25:57AM -0700, Jerry Snitselaar wrote: > > > > > > Jarkko Sakkinen @ 2017-03-24 10:10 GMT: > > > > > > > This commit adds support for requesting and relinquishing locality 0 in > > > > tpm_crb for the course of command transmission. > > > > > > > > In order to achieve this, two new callbacks are added to struct > > > > tpm_class_ops: > > > > > > > > - request_locality > > > > - relinquish_locality > > > > > > > > With CRB interface you first set either requestAccess or relinquish bit > > > > from TPM_LOC_CTRL_x register and then wait for locAssigned and > > > > tpmRegValidSts bits to be set in the TPM_LOC_STATE_x register. > > > > > > > > The reason why were are doing this is to make sure that the driver > > > > will work properly with Intel TXT that uses locality 2. There's no > > > > explicit guarantee that it would relinquish this locality. In more > > > > general sense this commit enables tpm_crb to be a well behaving > > > > citizen in a multi locality environment. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Jarkko Sakkinen <[email protected]> > > > > > > Reviewed-by: Jerry Snitselaar <[email protected]> > > > Tested-by: Jerry Snitselaar <[email protected]> > > > > > > Tested on kabylake system that was hitting issues with earlier > > > iteration. Still don't have platform to test it dealing with > > > multi-locality enviroment. > > > > I believe Jimmy (Gang Wei) has done such testing. Jimmy can you confirm > > and possibly do re-test (there's a locality branch in my tree to ease > > the testing) so that we could land this one? > > > > /Jarkko > > I applied this to my master and next branches. > > /Jarkko >
Hi Jarkko, The patch applied to next and master doesn't have the assignment moved inside the mutex. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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
