Heiko, I had another look. Oberall the changes seem fine and I don't mind keeping them. Any chance you tested this on actual hardware?
Cheers /Ilias On Fri, 5 Dec 2025 at 16:11, Tom Rini <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Fri, Dec 05, 2025 at 09:02:28AM +0100, Heiko Schocher wrote: > > Hello Ilias, > > > > On 05.12.25 08:24, Ilias Apalodimas wrote: > > > On Fri, 5 Dec 2025 at 07:03, Heiko Schocher <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > Hello Tom, > > > > > > > > On 04.12.25 20:31, Tom Rini wrote: > > > > > On Tue, 18 Nov 2025 05:30:36 +0100, Heiko Schocher wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Add SM3 secure hash, as specified by OSCCA GM/T 0004-2012 SM3 and > > > > > > described > > > > > > at https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-sca-cfrg-sm3-02 > > > > > > > > > > > > TPMv2 defines hash algo sm3_256, which is currently > > > > > > not supported and prevented TPMv2 chip with newer > > > > > > firmware to work with U-Boot. Seen this on a ST33TPHF2XI2C > > > > > > > > > > > > [...] > > > > > > > > > > Applied to u-boot/next, thanks! > > > > > > > > > > [1/6] lib: Import rol32 function from Linux > > > > > commit: 6a0c939b88fd42c6b0a374f7c87317f292df46a1 > > > > > [2/6] lib: import sm3 256 hash parts from linux > > > > > commit: 41c0131b950a16747929ab310588cf5db8e38123 > > > > > [3/6] lib: sm3: implement U-Boot parts > > > > > commit: c4ab316269debc321907acc4f8f02dfe5653aeaf > > > > > [4/6] test: cmd: hash: add unit test for sm3_256 > > > > > commit: 213601a600f1e8894cea76b0bfc131f038882407 > > > > > [5/6] tpm2: add sm3 256 hash support > > > > > commit: 7c3f05ad51e4bc23dd4f411f28968f1d8f43099c > > > > > [6/6] test: cmd: fix a typo in md5 test > > > > > commit: b30557b3b46c5162cb88a57907c517ed95557239 > > > > > > > > Oh, may a little to fast, as Ilias and Quentin had some comments > > > > about tpm2 implementation/test (tpm2: add sm3 256 hash support > > > > patch). But I can send changes on top of that patches (but > > > > give me some time for it... end of year rally has started...) > > > > > > > > > > Yea I pinged Tom yesterday. > > > tbh, my main concern was testing the changes. I dont mind if we revert > > > and reapply or send the changes on top. > > > > I am fine with sending updates on top. > > Sorry for getting ahead of everyone else here, since it sounds like > everyone is OK with updates on top, we can move forward. Thanks! > > -- > Tom
