Hi Martin, > > > > > Is there any specific reason why the new tpm2_tis_spi_xfer doesn't > > > > support full duplex? It seems we did some work in parallel but you > > > > sent the patches earlier. Is that codes tested against an existing > > > > TPM v2? I have a working implementation what runs on SLB9670 including > > full duplex. > > > > > > > > What do you mean exactly? > > > > > > > > I don't think the TPM2 protocol makes real use of full-duplex unless > > > > for the wait state between the host command and the actual xfer. > > > > > > You are right, TIS 1.3 FIFO doesn’t use full duplex in physical level. > > > What I > > mean is that the driver you just wrote doesn't use the xfer function in that > > way that you can specify in and out parameters at same time. I did this in > > my > > implementation what gave me an easy chance to control the CS# of the TPM. > > > > Do you need this CS# handling for more advanced features? Same question > > for the in/out xfers? > > > > > Can you tell me on what TPM did you test? For the SLB9670 the code > > > doesn't work on my hardware. > > > > I tested with a ST33TPHF20 SPI TPM. > > > > I'm surprised it did not work with an SLB9670, I don't see anything in the > > spec > > explaining this CS# specificity. > > The CS# may controls an internal state machine and the SLB9670 uses that > signal. > > > > > For the code you wrote I'm considering to add a few lines to control > > > the CS# in that way how my xfer is doing this for the SLB9670. > > > > Yes please, share the patch and add me in cc so I could test it with mine. > Fine, will do so soon.
What's the status of this? I did not spot any patches, maybe you forgot to copy me? Otherwise do you still plan to share the changes? That would be great! Thanks, Miquèl _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot
