Re: [PATCH] tpm, tpm_crb: migrate to struct acpi_table_tpm2 and acpi_tpm2_control

[Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>]

Hi

I somehow missed your reply to this last week.

On Tue, Jun 02, 2015 at 04:00:37PM +0200, Peter Huewe wrote:
> Hi
> >Betreff: [PATCH] tpm, tpm_crb: migrate to struct acpi_table_tpm2 and acpi_tpm2_control
> > Migrate to struct acpi_table_tpm2 and struct acpi_tpm2_control defined
> > in include/acpi/actbl3.h from the internal structures.
> 
> I definitely do like the idea! Thanks for spotting this!
> 
> However one small remark
> > -struct crb_control_area {
> > - u32 req;
> > - u32 sts;
> > - u32 cancel;
> > - u32 start;
> > - u32 int_enable;
> > - u32 int_sts;
> > - u32 cmd_size;
> > - u64 cmd_pa;
> > - u32 rsp_size;
> > - u64 rsp_pa;
> > -} __packed;
> > -
> > 
> > - if (le32_to_cpu(ioread32(&priv->cca->sts)) & CRB_CA_STS_ERROR)
> > + if (le32_to_cpu(ioread32(&priv->ctl->error)) & CRB_CA_STS_ERROR)
> > return -EIO;
> 
> I know the fields are described in include/acpi/actbl3.h as 
> +struct acpi_tpm2_control {
> +	u32 reserved;
> +	u32 error;
> +	u32 cancel;
> +	u32 start;
> +	u64 interrupt_control;
> +	u32 command_size;
> +	u64 command_address;
> +	u32 response_size;
> +	u64 response_address;
> +};
> 
> but are the names there still correct? Isn't this information outdated?
> The acpi spec refers to the MS spec which is not present anymore, and MS refers to the TCG -- and in the PTP your names are used.
> 
> ---> We should update the ACPI header? 
> At least the naming for reserved and error.
> What do you think?

I think you are right. It does not make sense to degrade here. I'll
prepare "CRB fixes" patch set and also include a workaround for this
bug:

https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=98181

See my last comment.

> Thanks,
> Peter

/Jarkko