On Wed, 26 Feb 2020 at 01:40, Laszlo Ersek <ler...@redhat.com> wrote: > > On 02/25/20 11:44, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > > Duplicate the TPM2_ENABLE and TPM2_CONFIG_ENABLE build time flags that > > already exist in OvmfPkg, and wire them up in the .DSC and .FDF so > > that setting those flags produces a ArmVirtQemu build that implements > > measured boot using a TPM provided by QEMU and described in the device > > tree. > > > > Note that the TPM2 driver stack relies on a PEI phase being implemented, > > so there is no point in enabling this for ArmVirtQemuKernel or ArmVirtXen. > > > > Also note that, despite ArmVirtQemuKernel being unaffected by this patch, > > ArmVirtPkg/ArmVirtQemuFvMain.fdf.inc is being modified, for keeping the > > contexts of the referring !include directives simple. > > > > Signed-off-by: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheu...@linaro.org> > > --- > > ArmVirtPkg/ArmVirtQemu.dsc | 75 ++++++++++++++++++++ > > ArmVirtPkg/ArmVirtQemu.fdf | 6 ++ > > ArmVirtPkg/ArmVirtQemuFvMain.fdf.inc | 10 +++ > > 3 files changed, 91 insertions(+) > > Under a similar, recent patch from Marc-André (which proposes enabling > TPM-1.2 in OvmfPkg), I asked Marc-André to build up the work in small > steps, practically mirroring the gradual TPM2.0 stuff from OvmfPkg: > > * [edk2-devel] [PATCH v2 3/3] Ovmf: enable TPM 1.2 support > > bbf8cf87-9c90-5507-82b3-ae8534555a54@redhat.com">http://mid.mail-archive.com/bbf8cf87-9c90-5507-82b3-ae8534555a54@redhat.com > > https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/54473 > > I'd like to be consistent as a review (and I indeed prefer that > approach), so I'd like to ask you for the same. > > Now if you and Marc-André agree that I'm being unreasonable, I guess I > could be convinced... I don't want to annoy patch authors needlessly (I > just find small gradual steps easier to understand, later). > > (Extra apologies if my current request contradicts something I asked for > in the v1 review -- please do point it out, if that's the case. I'd like > to be responsive and consistent, but there's just too much to re-review, > even incrementally. I can easily see myself making process mistakes > here, due to fatigue.) >
I don't mind per se, but I'm not sure I understand how you want this to be split. - library classes first, then PCDs, then components. - PEI modules first, then DXE modules - TPM2_ENABLE pieces first, then TPM2_CONFIG_ENABLE. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#54869): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/54869 Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/71530906/21656 Group Owner: devel+ow...@edk2.groups.io Unsubscribe: https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
