On Fri, Dec 05, 2014 at 04:01:01PM +0100, Peter Huewe wrote: > > > > > Am Donnerstag, 4. Dezember 2014, 06:55:18 schrieb Jarkko Sakkinen: > > > > From: Will Arthur <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > Detect TPM 2.0 by using the extended STS (STS3) register. For TPM 2.0, > > > > instead of calling tpm_get_timeouts(), assign duration and timeout > > > > values defined in the TPM 2.0 PTP specification. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Will Arthur <[email protected]> > > > > Signed-off-by: Jarkko Sakkinen <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > > > + sts3 = ioread8(chip->vendor.iobase + TPM_STS3(1)); > > > > + if ((sts3 & TPM_STS3_TPM2_FAM) == TPM_STS3_TPM2_FAM) > > > > + chip->flags = TPM_CHIP_FLAG_TPM2; > > > > + > > > > > > > > > > > > When loading tpm_tis force=1 with my tpm1.2 chip on a machine without bios > > > integration, it fets detected as a TPM2.0 chip :/ > > > > > > sudo rmmod tpm_tis > > > # modprobe tpm_tis force=1 > > > modprobe: ERROR: could not insert 'tpm_tis': No such device > > > # dmesg > > > [ 263.903828] tpm_tis tpm_tis: 2.0 TPM (device-id 0xB, rev-id 16) > > > [ 263.948049] tpm_tis tpm_tis: A TPM error (10) occurred continue selftest > > > [ 263.948120] tpm_tis tpm_tis: TPM self test failed > > > > > > > > > sts3 is reported as 0xff from my TPM1.2 > > > > > > > > > Hmm, > > my TPM2.0 chip also reports sts3 as 0xff (when loading with force=1 on a > > machine without bios integration) > > > > [ 307.095344] sts3 ff > > [ 307.095366] tpm_tis tpm_tis: 2.0 TPM (device-id 0x1A, rev-id 16) > > [ 307.140047] tpm_tis tpm_tis: A TPM error (256) occurred continue selftest > > [ 307.140056] tpm_tis tpm_tis: TPM self test failed > > > You are reading "sts3" - before requesting the locality and thus > it returns 0xff for a TPM20 chip as well. > --> You have to have an active locality first. > > > For a TPM2.0 0xFF is not a valid value (if active locality is > set), since reading commandCancel and resetEstablishment bit > always return 0 on reads (according to spec). > > --> 0xFF should be treated as a TPM1.2 (older tpms with TIS 1.2) > --> 0x04 should be treated as TPM 2.0 > --> 0x08 should be treated as TPM1.2 (newer tpms with TIS1.3 enhanced)
Correct. I discussed with some people and verified the reason to be such that if firmware does nothing, the locality is unopened. I have access today to similar setup and can fix this regression and verify my fix. Thanks for pointing this out! > Thanks, > Peter /Jarkko ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Dive into the World of Parallel Programming! The Go Parallel Website, sponsored by Intel and developed in partnership with Slashdot Media, is your hub for all things parallel software development, from weekly thought leadership blogs to news, videos, case studies, tutorials and more. Take a look and join the conversation now. http://goparallel.sourceforge.net _______________________________________________ TrouSerS-tech mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/trousers-tech
