Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752038AbdDNE62 (ORCPT ); Fri, 14 Apr 2017 00:58:28 -0400 Received: from smtp.codeaurora.org ([198.145.29.96]:56550 "EHLO smtp.codeaurora.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750750AbdDNE6Z (ORCPT ); Fri, 14 Apr 2017 00:58:25 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2017 23:58:24 -0500 From: anjiandi@codeaurora.org To: Mark Rutland Cc: Jarkko Sakkinen , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Shanker Donthineni , ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org, harba@codeaurora.org Subject: Re: ARM64 TPM start method patches In-Reply-To: <20170411113652.GB32267@leverpostej> References: <20170411113652.GB32267@leverpostej> Message-ID: <9890ce2f139b4204d17c6a398681083f@codeaurora.org> User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/1.2.1 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1636 Lines: 45 Adding Harb Abdulhamid for SMC details On 2017-04-11 06:36, Mark Rutland wrote: > Hi, > > I just stumbled upon the following commits in next-20170411: > > cf8252ca7ca76fa4 ("ACPICA: Update TPM2 ACPI table") > 08eff49d63ca2bf4 ("tpm/tpm_crb: Enable TPM CRB interface for ARM64") > > ... which leave me a little concerned, for two reasons. > > Firstly, the spec these are based on (TCG ACPI Specification Family > “1.2” and “2.0” Version 1.2, Revision 8), is a draft, open for public > review until April 28th 2017 [1], and still subject to change, as noted > in the title page of the document [2]: > > This document is an intermediate draft for comment only and is > subject to change without notice. Readers should not design > products > based on this document. > > ... so I hope the plan is not to merge these until the final spec is > published. > > Secondly, the spec is very vague as to the workings of the SMC call, > and > does not define: > > * That the SMC call follows the SMC Calling Convention [3] > * The parameters to the SMC call > * The return value(s) of the SMC call > > ... which I believe should be clarified in the spec before we make > assumptions regarding these in the Linux driver. Otherwise, this is > liable to vary in practice. > > Thanks, > Mark. > > [1] https://trustedcomputinggroup.org/specifications-public-review/ > [2] > https://trustedcomputinggroup.org/wp-content/uploads/TCG_ACPIGeneralSpecification-Family-1.2-and-2.0-Ver1.2-Rev8_public-revie....pdf > [3] > http://infocenter.arm.com/help/topic/com.arm.doc.den0028b/ARM_DEN0028B_SMC_Calling_Convention.pdf