On 11/9/21 09:20, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Tue, Nov 09, 2021 at 09:01:51AM -0500, Stefan Berger wrote:
Add missing device identification objects _STR and _UID. They will appear
as files 'description' and 'uid' under Linux sysfs.
Cc: Shannon Zhao <shannon.zha...@gmail.com>
Cc: Michael S. Tsirkin <m...@redhat.com>
Cc: Igor Mammedov <imamm...@redhat.com>
Cc: Ani Sinha <a...@anisinha.ca>
Fixes: https://gitlab.com/qemu-project/qemu/-/issues/708
Signed-off-by: Stefan Berger <stef...@linux.ibm.com>
Do you want this in 6.2?
Yes.
---
hw/arm/virt-acpi-build.c | 1 +
hw/i386/acpi-build.c | 8 ++++++++
2 files changed, 9 insertions(+)
diff --git a/hw/arm/virt-acpi-build.c b/hw/arm/virt-acpi-build.c
index 674f902652..09456424aa 100644
--- a/hw/arm/virt-acpi-build.c
+++ b/hw/arm/virt-acpi-build.c
@@ -228,6 +228,7 @@ static void acpi_dsdt_add_tpm(Aml *scope, VirtMachineState
*vms)
Aml *dev = aml_device("TPM0");
aml_append(dev, aml_name_decl("_HID", aml_string("MSFT0101")));
+ aml_append(dev, aml_name_decl("_STR", aml_string("TPM 2.0 Device")));
aml_append(dev, aml_name_decl("_UID", aml_int(0)));
Aml *crs = aml_resource_template();
diff --git a/hw/i386/acpi-build.c b/hw/i386/acpi-build.c
index a3ad6abd33..5bd2160a89 100644
--- a/hw/i386/acpi-build.c
+++ b/hw/i386/acpi-build.c
@@ -1808,11 +1808,15 @@ build_dsdt(GArray *table_data, BIOSLinker *linker,
dev = aml_device("TPM");
aml_append(dev, aml_name_decl("_HID",
aml_string("MSFT0101")));
+ aml_append(dev,
+ aml_name_decl("_STR",
+ aml_string("TPM 2.0 Device")));
When we support more versions, won't this make us
do annoying tricks to say so in the string?
Why not just "TPM device" to future-proof it?
I am not sure what other version there will be and I haven't seen any
other descriptions than the one reported here:
https://gitlab.com/qemu-project/qemu/-/issues/708
That's why I took TPM 2.0 device. My TPM 1.2 machine doesn't report it
for a TPM 1.2.
haven } else {
dev = aml_device("ISA.TPM");
aml_append(dev, aml_name_decl("_HID",
aml_eisaid("PNP0C31")));
}
+ aml_append(dev, aml_name_decl("_UID", aml_int(1)));
The ACPI spec mentions also matching on _CID.
"6.1.2 _CID (Compatible ID)
This optional object is used to supply OSPM with a device?s Plug and
Play-Compatible Device ID. Use _CID
objects when a device has no other defined hardware standard method to
report its compatible IDs"
6.1.12 _UID (Unique ID)
This object provides OSPM with a logical device ID that does not change
across reboots. This object is
optional, but is required when the device has no other way to report a
persistent unique device ID. The
_UID must be unique across all devices with either a common _HID or _CID.
Is _CID a must-have for TPM now? We have _HID.
aml_append(dev, aml_name_decl("_STA", aml_int(0xF)));
crs = aml_resource_template();
@@ -1840,6 +1844,8 @@ build_dsdt(GArray *table_data, BIOSLinker *linker,
if (TPM_IS_CRB(tpm)) {
dev = aml_device("TPM");
aml_append(dev, aml_name_decl("_HID", aml_string("MSFT0101")));
+ aml_append(dev, aml_name_decl("_STR",
+ aml_string("TPM 2.0 Device")));
crs = aml_resource_template();
aml_append(crs, aml_memory32_fixed(TPM_CRB_ADDR_BASE,
TPM_CRB_ADDR_SIZE,
AML_READ_WRITE));
@@ -1847,6 +1853,8 @@ build_dsdt(GArray *table_data, BIOSLinker *linker,
aml_append(dev, aml_name_decl("_STA", aml_int(0xf)));
+ aml_append(dev, aml_name_decl("_UID", aml_int(1)));
+
tpm_build_ppi_acpi(tpm, dev);
aml_append(sb_scope, dev);
--
2.31.1
