Hi Miquel, On 7 June 2018 at 23:36, Miquel Raynal <miquel.ray...@bootlin.com> wrote: > Hi Simon, > > On Thu, 7 Jun 2018 16:25:28 -0800, Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org> wrote: > >> Hi Miquel, >> >> On 6 June 2018 at 23:38, Miquel Raynal <miquel.ray...@bootlin.com> wrote: >> > Hello, >> > >> > Sorry for the delay. >> > >> > On Sat, 2 Jun 2018 10:15:17 -0600, Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org> wrote: >> > >> >> Hi Tom, >> >> >> >> On 1 June 2018 at 11:55, Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote: >> >> > >> >> > On Fri, Jun 01, 2018 at 09:25:19AM -0600, Simon Glass wrote: >> >> > > +Miquel due to sandbox TPM issue >> >> > > >> >> > > Hi Tom, >> >> > > >> >> > > On 25 May 2018 at 06:27, Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote: >> >> > > > In order to have the test.py tests for TPMv2 run automatically we >> >> > > > need >> >> > > > to have one of our sandbox builds use TPMv2 rather than TPMv1. >> >> > > > Switch >> >> > > > sandbox_flattree over to this style of TPM. >> >> > > >> >> > > The problem seems to be that the sandbox driver is only built with >> >> > > either TPMv1 or TPMv2. It needs to be able to build with both, so we >> >> > > can run tests with both. >> >> > >> >> > Right. But we don't have any run-time automatic tests for TPMv1 as the >> >> > 'tpm test' command needs to be done manually, at least today (unless I'm >> >> > missing something under test/py/tests/). And we can't (functionally in >> >> > real uses) have both TPM types available. Perhaps we should make TPMv2 >> >> > the default for sandbox? All of the TPMv1 code will still be getting >> >> > build-time exercised due to platforms with TPMv1 on them. >> >> >> >> I'll take a look at this. It should actually be quite easy to have two >> >> TPMs in sandbox, one v1 and one v2. At least I don't know of any >> >> impediment. >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > It really doesn't make any sense to have build-time branches for >> >> > > sandbox. >> >> > > >> >> > > We currently have: >> >> > > >> >> > > sandbox - should be used for most tests >> >> > > sandbox64 - special build that forces a 64-bit host >> >> > > sandbox_flattree - builds with dev_read_...() functions defined as >> >> > > inline. We need this build so that we can test those inline functions, >> >> > > and we cannot build with both the inline functions and the non-inline >> >> > > functions since they are named the same >> >> > > sandbox_noblk - builds without CONFIG_BLK, which means the legacy >> >> > > block drivers are used. We cannot use both the legacy and driver-model >> >> > > block drivers since they implement the same functions >> >> > > sandbox_spl - builds sandbox with SPL support, so you can run >> >> > > spl/u-boot-spl and it will start up and then load ./u-boot. We could >> >> > > probably remove this and add SPL support to the vanilla sandbox build, >> >> > > since people can still run ./u-boot directly >> >> > > >> >> > > At present there are unnecessary config differences between these >> >> > > builds. This is explained by the fact that it is a pain for people to >> >> > > have to add configs separately to each defconfig. But we should >> >> > > probably make them more common. I will take a look. >> >> > >> >> > OK. >> >> > >> >> > > What do you think about dropping sandbox_spl and make sandbox build >> >> > > SPL? It does take slightly longer to build, perhaps 25%. >> >> > >> >> > That's fine with me. >> >> > >> >> > > > Cc: Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org> >> >> > > > Signed-off-by: Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> >> >> > > > --- >> >> > > > I'm tempted to switch the main sandbox target over instead as I >> >> > > > don't >> >> > > > quite see where we're running the tpm1.x tests automatically. Would >> >> > > > that be a better idea? >> >> > > > --- >> >> > > >> >> > > Miquel, can we adjust the code to build both TPMv1 and v2 for sandbox, >> >> > > and select at run-time? >> >> > >> >> > I thought we had talked about that before and couldn't easily? One >> >> > thing I am a bit wary of is adding indirection for build coverage sake. >> >> >> >> Yes, I am hoping that it is just different drivers with the same API >> >> but perhaps I am going to be disappointed. >> > >> > Indeed, both versions share the same 'architecture' but quite a few >> > structures/functions are defined differently for each TPM flavour in >> > different files. What makes the magic are the >> > #ifdef TPM_V1 >> > #else >> > #endif >> > blocks around includes, making them mutually exclusive. >> > >> > Choice has been made not to use both flavours at the same time in the >> > second series, when I clearly made a separation between v1 code and v2 >> > code. Trying to compile them both with just some Kconfig hacks would >> > simply not work IMHO. >> > >> > My apologies for not being helpful at all... As Tom said, there are no >> > tests running on v1 code so maybe it's better to exercise v2 code in >> > Sandbox and let people compile-test the former on their own? >> >> I had a play with this and it does not seem too tricky. >> >> With a bit of fiddling I got it to build except for this: >> >> /home/sjg/c/src/third_party/u-boot/files/cmd/tpm-v2.c:324: multiple >> definition of `get_tpm_commands' > > That's one problem. I'm pretty sure at some point we will need to > declare differently tpm_chip_priv depending on the version. Using two > structures in an enumeration could be the way to handle it.
I think you can just remove the #ifdef from inside struct tpm_chip_priv - it's not really a nice thing to do anyway. > > Another point is that doing so, you embed twice the code and symbols > than what's really needed. Is not having mutually exclusive > code better than enlarging U-Boot binary? The sandbox binary is enormous since it enables as many features as it can. We can always create a minimal sandbox if it becomes useful, but for now sandbox is mostly for testing. > >> >> I think if you adjust it to check the driver version (v1 or v2), then >> you can use either the v1 or v2 command set. You could move the >> get_tpm_commands function into the uclass so it can check the driver. > > It means patching all drivers if we want to do it cleanly. Yes, you could have a field that needs to be set so that the uclass knows which version it is. Alternatively if you want to save a patch you could have an is_v2 bool, which defaults to 0 for v1 drivers. > >> As to whether the driver is v1 or v2, I wonder if the driver could set >> a 'version' flag in tpm_chip_priv() ? > > Probably. > >> I really don't like the idea of having mutually exclusive code in >> driver model, so it would be good to fix this. > > I'll be away the next weeks, so I won't work on it before end of June. > Can you share a diff of your changes? Yes I pushed a patch to u-boot-dm branch tpm-working. Regards, Simon _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot