Eugen, Will this go through your tree? I recently picked up maintainership of the TPM drivers, so I could send them through that. Up to you.
Cheers /Ilias On Tue, 9 Nov 2021 at 10:57, Ilias Apalodimas <ilias.apalodi...@linaro.org> wrote: > > On Tue, 9 Nov 2021 at 10:42, <eugen.hris...@microchip.com> wrote: > > > > On 11/4/21 3:12 AM, Mathew McBride wrote: > > > While doing bringup/rebase for the Ten64 I did some troubleshooting > > > for the tpm (v1.2, NOT tpm2) command which did not appear to function, > > > despite the Linux driver and tools (tcsd) working on the same board. > > > > > > Evidently the Atmel TPM driver hasn't kept up with various step > > > changes in the I2C and TPM stacks, and while TPMv1.2 is quite > > > dated to TPMv2 it would be nice to make some use of the hardware > > > that is there. > > > (Admittedly I would love to replace our hardware TPM with an fTPM > > > but that is a project for another day) > > > > > > There are also subcommands in tpm-v1 which also have been > > > missed in changes to the TPMv1 API and are fixed in this patchset. > > > > > > I have checked that this set isn't impacted by Ilias' TPM cleanup > > > series[1] which only touches TPMv2. > > > > > > [1] - > > > http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/uboot/cover/20211103150910.69732-1-ilias.apalodi...@linaro.org/ > > > > > > Mathew McBride (6): > > > cmd: tpm-v1: fix compile error in TPMv1 list resources command > > > cmd: tpm-v1: fix load_key_by_sha1 compile errors > > > drivers: tpm: atmel_twi: drop non-DM_I2C compatibility > > > drivers: tpm: atmel_twi: do not use an offset byte > > > drivers: tpm: atmel_twi: implement get_desc operation > > > drivers: tpm: atmel_twi: fix printf specifier compile warning > > > > > > cmd/tpm-v1.c | 17 +++++++++++------ > > > drivers/tpm/tpm_atmel_twi.c | 22 +++++++--------------- > > > lib/tpm-v1.c | 4 ++-- > > > 3 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-) > > > > > > -- > > > 2.30.1 > > > > > > > Hello Mathew, Ilias, > > > > Even if this series touches a Microchip driver/part that is not part of > > the at91 architecture, the patches are in my queue. > > I can take them through at91 tree if this is the way to go. > > I am fine with that > > > Is there another custodian tree that is dedicated for such kind of > > drivers? or more specific ? > > As far as I know there isn't. > > > > > Simon, your opinion on this ? > > > > P.S. some of the patches look to be fixes most likely, so I guess it > > would be more likely to have them as fixes for 2022.01 release ? > > Yes all of those look good. I had a minor comment on one of those, > but we can always add more info on the TPM later. > > Thanks > /Ilias > > > > Thanks, > > Eugen
