Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2016 09:42:41 -0800
From: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>
To: Nayna <nayna@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Peter Huewe <peterhuewe@gmx.de>,
        "moderated list:TPM DEVICE DRIVER" 
        <tpmdd-devel@lists.sourceforge.net>,
        open list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [tpmdd-devel] [PATCH RFC 2/2] tpm: refactor tpm2_get_tpm_pt to
 tpm2_getcap_cmd
Message-ID: <20161117174241.wvyd7g5lj4ibfnry@intel.com>
References: <1476008057-2395-1-git-send-email-jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>
 <1476008057-2395-3-git-send-email-jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>
 <58254759.80406@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <20161112000242.63hgv5ujmkr7hy6a@intel.com>
 <582D998C.40605@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <582D998C.40605@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Organization: Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - Westendinkatu 7, 02160 Espoo
User-Agent: Mutt/1.6.2-neo (2016-08-21)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 860
Lines: 21

On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 05:20:36PM +0530, Nayna wrote:
 
> I tested this for capability TPM2_CAP_PCRS. It seems TPM2_CAP_PCRS
> capability always returns full PCR allocation, and more_data as 0, So, I
> think the idea of looping over based on more_data may not work for this
> capability.

You can always request one value at a time until there's no more.

If you request N values, depending on the hardware, the hardware returns
to you anything from 1 to N values. If you implement a function that
requests N values in the command, you *must* handle the case where
moreData is 1 even if the hardware you are testing that never happens.

That's the reason why I would start with a function that you request one
property of one capability and optimize it in future if it doesn't scale
for some workload.

Do you have a workload where it doesn't scale?

/Jarkko