Messages in this thread | | | From | "Peter Huewe" <> | Subject | Aw: [PATCH] tpm, tpm_crb: migrate to struct acpi_table_tpm2 and acpi_tpm2_control | Date | Tue, 2 Jun 2015 16:00:37 +0200 |
| |
Hi >Betreff: [PATCH] tpm, tpm_crb: migrate to struct acpi_table_tpm2 and acpi_tpm2_control > Migrate to struct acpi_table_tpm2 and struct acpi_tpm2_control defined > in include/acpi/actbl3.h from the internal structures.
I definitely do like the idea! Thanks for spotting this!
However one small remark > -struct crb_control_area { > - u32 req; > - u32 sts; > - u32 cancel; > - u32 start; > - u32 int_enable; > - u32 int_sts; > - u32 cmd_size; > - u64 cmd_pa; > - u32 rsp_size; > - u64 rsp_pa; > -} __packed; > - > > - if (le32_to_cpu(ioread32(&priv->cca->sts)) & CRB_CA_STS_ERROR) > + if (le32_to_cpu(ioread32(&priv->ctl->error)) & CRB_CA_STS_ERROR) > return -EIO;
I know the fields are described in include/acpi/actbl3.h as +struct acpi_tpm2_control { + u32 reserved; + u32 error; + u32 cancel; + u32 start; + u64 interrupt_control; + u32 command_size; + u64 command_address; + u32 response_size; + u64 response_address; +};
but are the names there still correct? Isn't this information outdated? The acpi spec refers to the MS spec which is not present anymore, and MS refers to the TCG -- and in the PTP your names are used.
---> We should update the ACPI header? At least the naming for reserved and error. What do you think?
Thanks, Peter
| |