Hi Miquel, On 6 June 2018 at 23:38, Miquel Raynal <miquel.ray...@bootlin.com> wrote: > Hello, > > Sorry for the delay. > > On Sat, 2 Jun 2018 10:15:17 -0600, Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org> wrote: > >> Hi Tom, >> >> On 1 June 2018 at 11:55, Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote: >> > >> > On Fri, Jun 01, 2018 at 09:25:19AM -0600, Simon Glass wrote: >> > > +Miquel due to sandbox TPM issue >> > > >> > > Hi Tom, >> > > >> > > On 25 May 2018 at 06:27, Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote: >> > > > In order to have the test.py tests for TPMv2 run automatically we need >> > > > to have one of our sandbox builds use TPMv2 rather than TPMv1. Switch >> > > > sandbox_flattree over to this style of TPM. >> > > >> > > The problem seems to be that the sandbox driver is only built with >> > > either TPMv1 or TPMv2. It needs to be able to build with both, so we >> > > can run tests with both. >> > >> > Right. But we don't have any run-time automatic tests for TPMv1 as the >> > 'tpm test' command needs to be done manually, at least today (unless I'm >> > missing something under test/py/tests/). And we can't (functionally in >> > real uses) have both TPM types available. Perhaps we should make TPMv2 >> > the default for sandbox? All of the TPMv1 code will still be getting >> > build-time exercised due to platforms with TPMv1 on them. >> >> I'll take a look at this. It should actually be quite easy to have two >> TPMs in sandbox, one v1 and one v2. At least I don't know of any >> impediment. >> >> > >> > > It really doesn't make any sense to have build-time branches for sandbox. >> > > >> > > We currently have: >> > > >> > > sandbox - should be used for most tests >> > > sandbox64 - special build that forces a 64-bit host >> > > sandbox_flattree - builds with dev_read_...() functions defined as >> > > inline. We need this build so that we can test those inline functions, >> > > and we cannot build with both the inline functions and the non-inline >> > > functions since they are named the same >> > > sandbox_noblk - builds without CONFIG_BLK, which means the legacy >> > > block drivers are used. We cannot use both the legacy and driver-model >> > > block drivers since they implement the same functions >> > > sandbox_spl - builds sandbox with SPL support, so you can run >> > > spl/u-boot-spl and it will start up and then load ./u-boot. We could >> > > probably remove this and add SPL support to the vanilla sandbox build, >> > > since people can still run ./u-boot directly >> > > >> > > At present there are unnecessary config differences between these >> > > builds. This is explained by the fact that it is a pain for people to >> > > have to add configs separately to each defconfig. But we should >> > > probably make them more common. I will take a look. >> > >> > OK. >> > >> > > What do you think about dropping sandbox_spl and make sandbox build >> > > SPL? It does take slightly longer to build, perhaps 25%. >> > >> > That's fine with me. >> > >> > > > Cc: Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org> >> > > > Signed-off-by: Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> >> > > > --- >> > > > I'm tempted to switch the main sandbox target over instead as I don't >> > > > quite see where we're running the tpm1.x tests automatically. Would >> > > > that be a better idea? >> > > > --- >> > > >> > > Miquel, can we adjust the code to build both TPMv1 and v2 for sandbox, >> > > and select at run-time? >> > >> > I thought we had talked about that before and couldn't easily? One >> > thing I am a bit wary of is adding indirection for build coverage sake. >> >> Yes, I am hoping that it is just different drivers with the same API >> but perhaps I am going to be disappointed. > > Indeed, both versions share the same 'architecture' but quite a few > structures/functions are defined differently for each TPM flavour in > different files. What makes the magic are the > #ifdef TPM_V1 > #else > #endif > blocks around includes, making them mutually exclusive. > > Choice has been made not to use both flavours at the same time in the > second series, when I clearly made a separation between v1 code and v2 > code. Trying to compile them both with just some Kconfig hacks would > simply not work IMHO. > > My apologies for not being helpful at all... As Tom said, there are no > tests running on v1 code so maybe it's better to exercise v2 code in > Sandbox and let people compile-test the former on their own?
I had a play with this and it does not seem too tricky. With a bit of fiddling I got it to build except for this: /home/sjg/c/src/third_party/u-boot/files/cmd/tpm-v2.c:324: multiple definition of `get_tpm_commands' I think if you adjust it to check the driver version (v1 or v2), then you can use either the v1 or v2 command set. You could move the get_tpm_commands function into the uclass so it can check the driver. As to whether the driver is v1 or v2, I wonder if the driver could set a 'version' flag in tpm_chip_priv() ? I really don't like the idea of having mutually exclusive code in driver model, so it would be good to fix this. Regards, Simon _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot
