Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20190628151327.206818-1-oshrialkoby85@gmail.com>
 <8e6ca8796f229c5dc94355437351d7af323f0c56.camel@linux.intel.com>
 <79e8bfd2-2ed1-cf48-499c-5122229beb2e@infineon.com> <CAM9mBwJC2QD5-gV1eJUDzC2Fnnugr-oCZCoaH2sT_7ktFDkS-Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <45603af2fc8374a90ef9e81a67083395cc9c7190.camel@linux.intel.com>
 <6e7ff1b958d84f6e8e585fd3273ef295@NTILML02.nuvoton.com> <CAP6Zq1hPo9dG71YFyr7z9rjmi-DvoUZJOme4+2uqsfO+7nH+HQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20190715094541.zjqxainggjuvjxd2@linux.intel.com> <9c8e216dbc4f43dbaa1701dc166b05e0@NTILML02.nuvoton.com>
 <548d3727-4a8f-38d4-2193-8a09cbae1e64@infineon.com>
In-Reply-To: <548d3727-4a8f-38d4-2193-8a09cbae1e64@infineon.com>
From:   Oshri Alkobi <oshrialkoby85@gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 15 Aug 2019 20:03:56 +0300
Message-ID: <CAM9mBwL=5+pGTYUKbSdw5F6soR=tW-cqfbEQ9_NmCQTO=fSVZQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] char: tpm: add new driver for tpm i2c ptp
To:     Alexander Steffen <Alexander.Steffen@infineon.com>
Cc:     Eyal.Cohen@nuvoton.com,
        Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>,
        tmaimon77@gmail.com, robh+dt@kernel.org, mark.rutland@arm.com,
        peterhuewe@gmx.de, jgg@ziepe.ca, arnd@arndb.de,
        gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, oshri.alkoby@nuvoton.com,
        devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org, gcwilson@us.ibm.com,
        kgoldman@us.ibm.com, nayna@linux.vnet.ibm.com,
        Dan.Morav@nuvoton.com, oren.tanami@nuvoton.com,
        amir.mizinski@nuvoton.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 8:10 PM Alexander Steffen
<Alexander.Steffen@infineon.com> wrote:
>
> On 18.07.2019 14:51, Eyal.Cohen@nuvoton.com wrote:
> > Hi Jarkko and Alexander,
> >
> > We have made an additional code review on the TPM TIS core driver, it looks quite good and we can connect our new I2C driver to this layer.
>
> Great :) In the meantime, I've done some experiments creating an I2C
> driver based on tpm_tis_core, see
> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/11049363/ Please have a look at that
> and provide your feedback (and/or use it as a basis for further
> implementations).
>

Sorry for the late response.

Thanks Alexander, indeed it looks much simpler.
I've checked it with Nuvoton's TPM - basic TPM commands work, I only
had to remove the first msg from the read/write I2C transmitting
(from/to TPM_LOC_SEL), the TPM couldn't handle two register writes in
a sequence.
Actually it is more efficient to set TPM_LOC_SEL only before locality
check/request/relinquish - it is sticky.
I still didn't manage to work with interrupts, will debug it.

We weren't aware to the implementation of Christophe/ST which looks
good and can be complement to yours.
If no one is currently working on that, we can prepare a new patch
that is based on both.
Please let us know.

> > However, there are several differences between the SPI interface and the I2C interface that will require changes to the TIS core.
> > At a minimum we thought of:
> > 1. Handling TPM Localities in I2C is different
>
> It turned out not to be that different in the end, see the code
> mentioned above and my comment here:
> https://patchwork.kernel.org/cover/11049365/
>
> > 2. Handling I2C CRC - relevant only to I2C bus hence not supported today by TIS core
>
> That is completely optional, so there is no need to implement it in the
> beginning. Also, do you expect a huge benefit from that functionality?
> Are bit flips that much more likely on I2C compared to SPI, which has no
> CRC at all, but still works fine?
>

I2C is noisy bus with potentially more devices with larger variety
than SPI. I2C may have more than one master and may have collisions
and/or arbitration.
Still we can start w/o CRC for the first stage and add it later.
BTW, Christophe already did most of the work
(https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/8628661/)

> > 3. Handling Chip specific issues, since I2C implementation might be slightly different across the various TPM vendors
>
> Right, that seems similar to the cr50 issues
> (https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/7/17/677), so there should probably be a
> similar way to do it.

Got it. We hope things will work for us without having another driver,
but it's an option.

>
> > 4. Modify tpm_tis_send_data and tpm_tis_recv_data to work according the TCG Device Driver Guide (optimization on TPM_STS access and send/recv retry)
>
> Optimizations are always welcome, but I'd expect basic communication to
> work already with the current code (though maybe not as efficiently as
> possible).
>
> > Besides this, during development we might encounter additional differences between SPI and I2C.
> >
> > We currently target to allocate an eng. to work on this on the second half of August with a goal to have the driver ready for the next kernel merge window.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Eyal.