| Message ID | 20210707162604.84196-1-ilias.apalodimas@linaro.org |
|---|---|
| State | Superseded, archived |
| Delegated to: | Tom Rini |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [1/2,v2] tpm2: Introduce TIS tpm core | expand |
Hi Ilias, On Wed, 7 Jul 2021 at 10:26, Ilias Apalodimas <ilias.apalodimas@linaro.org> wrote: > > There's a lot of code duplication in U-Boot right now. All the TPM TIS You mean in the TPM code I think. > compatible drivers we have at the moment have their own copy of a TIS > implementation. > > So let's create a common layer which implements the core TIS functions. > Any driver added from now own, which is compatible with the TIS spec, will > only have to provide the underlying bus communication mechanisms. > > Signed-off-by: Ilias Apalodimas <ilias.apalodimas@linaro.org> > --- > Changes since v1: > - > drivers/tpm/tpm2_tis_core.c | 545 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > drivers/tpm/tpm_tis.h | 40 +++ > include/tpm-v2.h | 1 + > 3 files changed, 586 insertions(+) > create mode 100644 drivers/tpm/tpm2_tis_core.c [..] > diff --git a/drivers/tpm/tpm_tis.h b/drivers/tpm/tpm_tis.h > index 2a160fe05c9a..fde3bb71f7c2 100644 > --- a/drivers/tpm/tpm_tis.h > +++ b/drivers/tpm/tpm_tis.h > @@ -21,6 +21,37 @@ > #include <linux/compiler.h> > #include <linux/types.h> > > +struct tpm_tis_phy_ops { > + int (*read_bytes)(struct udevice *udev, u32 addr, u16 len, > + u8 *result); > + int (*write_bytes)(struct udevice *udev, u32 addr, u16 len, > + const u8 *value); > + int (*read16)(struct udevice *udev, u32 addr, u16 *result); > + int (*read32)(struct udevice *udev, u32 addr, u32 *result); > + int (*write32)(struct udevice *udev, u32 addr, u32 src); A few points: - these need comments - can we use uint instead of u32 for the value args? We should use native types where we can - it seems like this should be a driver interface - see for example how cros_ec.c works. It has a shared code library and the drivers each implement an interface similar to the above, but on different buses. In general function pointers are a sign we should be using a driver > +}; > + > +enum tis_int_flags { > + TPM_GLOBAL_INT_ENABLE = 0x80000000, > + TPM_INTF_BURST_COUNT_STATIC = 0x100, > + TPM_INTF_CMD_READY_INT = 0x080, > + TPM_INTF_INT_EDGE_FALLING = 0x040, > + TPM_INTF_INT_EDGE_RISING = 0x020, > + TPM_INTF_INT_LEVEL_LOW = 0x010, > + TPM_INTF_INT_LEVEL_HIGH = 0x008, > + TPM_INTF_LOCALITY_CHANGE_INT = 0x004, > + TPM_INTF_STS_VALID_INT = 0x002, > + TPM_INTF_DATA_AVAIL_INT = 0x001, > +}; > + > +#define TPM_ACCESS(l) (0x0000 | ((l) << 12)) > +#define TPM_INT_ENABLE(l) (0x0008 | ((l) << 12)) > +#define TPM_STS(l) (0x0018 | ((l) << 12)) > +#define TPM_DATA_FIFO(l) (0x0024 | ((l) << 12)) > +#define TPM_DID_VID(l) (0x0F00 | ((l) << 12)) > +#define TPM_RID(l) (0x0F04 | ((l) << 12)) > +#define TPM_INTF_CAPS(l) (0x0014 | ((l) << 12)) > + > enum tpm_timeout { > TPM_TIMEOUT_MS = 5, > TIS_SHORT_TIMEOUT_MS = 750, > @@ -43,6 +74,7 @@ struct tpm_chip { > u8 rid; > unsigned long timeout_a, timeout_b, timeout_c, timeout_d; /* msec */ > ulong chip_type; > + struct tpm_tis_phy_ops *phy_ops; > }; > > struct tpm_input_header { > @@ -130,4 +162,12 @@ enum tis_status { > }; > #endif > > +int tpm_tis_open(struct udevice *udev); > +int tpm_tis_close(struct udevice *udev); > +int tpm_tis_cleanup(struct udevice *udev); > +int tpm_tis_send(struct udevice *udev, const u8 *buf, size_t len); > +int tpm_tis_recv(struct udevice *udev, u8 *buf, size_t count); > +int tpm_tis_get_desc(struct udevice *udev, char *buf, int size); > +int tpm_tis_init(struct udevice *udev); > +void tpm_tis_ops_register(struct udevice *udev, struct tpm_tis_phy_ops *ops); comments on all of these > #endif > diff --git a/include/tpm-v2.h b/include/tpm-v2.h > index 247b38696766..3e48e358613f 100644 > --- a/include/tpm-v2.h > +++ b/include/tpm-v2.h > @@ -378,6 +378,7 @@ enum { > TPM_STS_DATA_EXPECT = 1 << 3, > TPM_STS_SELF_TEST_DONE = 1 << 2, > TPM_STS_RESPONSE_RETRY = 1 << 1, > + TPM_STS_READ_ZERO = 0x23 Does this below in another patch? > }; > > enum { > -- > 2.32.0.rc0 > I feel that this API could be useful in reducing code duplication, but in fact it has just created more, so far as I can see from this series :-) So I think you should convert at least one driver to show its value (and not make things any worse). Regards, Simon
On Sat, Jul 10, 2021 at 06:00:57PM -0600, Simon Glass wrote: > Hi Ilias, > > On Wed, 7 Jul 2021 at 10:26, Ilias Apalodimas > <ilias.apalodimas@linaro.org> wrote: > > > > There's a lot of code duplication in U-Boot right now. All the TPM TIS > > You mean in the TPM code I think. > Yes. Basically al TPM drivers duplicate this. > > compatible drivers we have at the moment have their own copy of a TIS > > implementation. > > > > So let's create a common layer which implements the core TIS functions. > > Any driver added from now own, which is compatible with the TIS spec, will > > only have to provide the underlying bus communication mechanisms. > > > > Signed-off-by: Ilias Apalodimas <ilias.apalodimas@linaro.org> > > --- > > Changes since v1: > > - > > drivers/tpm/tpm2_tis_core.c | 545 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > drivers/tpm/tpm_tis.h | 40 +++ > > include/tpm-v2.h | 1 + > > 3 files changed, 586 insertions(+) > > create mode 100644 drivers/tpm/tpm2_tis_core.c > > [..] > > > diff --git a/drivers/tpm/tpm_tis.h b/drivers/tpm/tpm_tis.h > > index 2a160fe05c9a..fde3bb71f7c2 100644 > > --- a/drivers/tpm/tpm_tis.h > > +++ b/drivers/tpm/tpm_tis.h > > @@ -21,6 +21,37 @@ > > #include <linux/compiler.h> > > #include <linux/types.h> > > > > +struct tpm_tis_phy_ops { > > + int (*read_bytes)(struct udevice *udev, u32 addr, u16 len, > > + u8 *result); > > + int (*write_bytes)(struct udevice *udev, u32 addr, u16 len, > > + const u8 *value); > > + int (*read16)(struct udevice *udev, u32 addr, u16 *result); > > + int (*read32)(struct udevice *udev, u32 addr, u32 *result); > > + int (*write32)(struct udevice *udev, u32 addr, u32 src); > > A few points: > > - these need comments > - can we use uint instead of u32 for the value args? We should use > native types where we can Yes probably, I'll have a look ` > - it seems like this should be a driver interface - see for example > how cros_ec.c works. It has a shared code library and the drivers each > implement an interface similar to the above, but on different buses. > In general function pointers are a sign we should be using a driver > I am not sure I am following, but I'll have a look on the code you pointed out. > > +}; > > + > > +enum tis_int_flags { > > + TPM_GLOBAL_INT_ENABLE = 0x80000000, > > + TPM_INTF_BURST_COUNT_STATIC = 0x100, > > + TPM_INTF_CMD_READY_INT = 0x080, > > + TPM_INTF_INT_EDGE_FALLING = 0x040, > > + TPM_INTF_INT_EDGE_RISING = 0x020, > > + TPM_INTF_INT_LEVEL_LOW = 0x010, > > + TPM_INTF_INT_LEVEL_HIGH = 0x008, > > + TPM_INTF_LOCALITY_CHANGE_INT = 0x004, > > + TPM_INTF_STS_VALID_INT = 0x002, > > + TPM_INTF_DATA_AVAIL_INT = 0x001, > > +}; > > + > > +#define TPM_ACCESS(l) (0x0000 | ((l) << 12)) > > +#define TPM_INT_ENABLE(l) (0x0008 | ((l) << 12)) > > +#define TPM_STS(l) (0x0018 | ((l) << 12)) > > +#define TPM_DATA_FIFO(l) (0x0024 | ((l) << 12)) > > +#define TPM_DID_VID(l) (0x0F00 | ((l) << 12)) > > +#define TPM_RID(l) (0x0F04 | ((l) << 12)) > > +#define TPM_INTF_CAPS(l) (0x0014 | ((l) << 12)) > > + > > enum tpm_timeout { > > TPM_TIMEOUT_MS = 5, > > TIS_SHORT_TIMEOUT_MS = 750, > > @@ -43,6 +74,7 @@ struct tpm_chip { > > u8 rid; > > unsigned long timeout_a, timeout_b, timeout_c, timeout_d; /* msec */ > > ulong chip_type; > > + struct tpm_tis_phy_ops *phy_ops; > > }; > > > > struct tpm_input_header { > > @@ -130,4 +162,12 @@ enum tis_status { > > }; > > #endif > > > > +int tpm_tis_open(struct udevice *udev); > > +int tpm_tis_close(struct udevice *udev); > > +int tpm_tis_cleanup(struct udevice *udev); > > +int tpm_tis_send(struct udevice *udev, const u8 *buf, size_t len); > > +int tpm_tis_recv(struct udevice *udev, u8 *buf, size_t count); > > +int tpm_tis_get_desc(struct udevice *udev, char *buf, int size); > > +int tpm_tis_init(struct udevice *udev); > > +void tpm_tis_ops_register(struct udevice *udev, struct tpm_tis_phy_ops *ops); > > comments on all of these > > > #endif > > diff --git a/include/tpm-v2.h b/include/tpm-v2.h > > index 247b38696766..3e48e358613f 100644 > > --- a/include/tpm-v2.h > > +++ b/include/tpm-v2.h > > @@ -378,6 +378,7 @@ enum { > > TPM_STS_DATA_EXPECT = 1 << 3, > > TPM_STS_SELF_TEST_DONE = 1 << 2, > > TPM_STS_RESPONSE_RETRY = 1 << 1, > > + TPM_STS_READ_ZERO = 0x23 > > Does this below in another patch? > It's a general tpm2 update. I can move it to the driver patch if it makes more sense. > > }; > > > > enum { > > -- > > 2.32.0.rc0 > > > > I feel that this API could be useful in reducing code duplication, but > in fact it has just created more, so far as I can see from this series > :-) So I think you should convert at least one driver to show its > value (and not make things any worse). The mmio tpm driver uses it and instead of ~700 lines (like the tpmv2 spi driver) it drops down to ~100. I don't have access to any other TPM hardware to rewrite any of those. > > Regards, > Simon
Hi Ilias, On Mon, 12 Jul 2021 at 00:24, Ilias Apalodimas <ilias.apalodimas@linaro.org> wrote: > > On Sat, Jul 10, 2021 at 06:00:57PM -0600, Simon Glass wrote: > > Hi Ilias, > > > > On Wed, 7 Jul 2021 at 10:26, Ilias Apalodimas > > <ilias.apalodimas@linaro.org> wrote: > > > > > > There's a lot of code duplication in U-Boot right now. All the TPM TIS > > > > You mean in the TPM code I think. > > > > Yes. Basically al TPM drivers duplicate this. > > > > compatible drivers we have at the moment have their own copy of a TIS > > > implementation. > > > > > > So let's create a common layer which implements the core TIS functions. > > > Any driver added from now own, which is compatible with the TIS spec, will > > > only have to provide the underlying bus communication mechanisms. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Ilias Apalodimas <ilias.apalodimas@linaro.org> > > > --- > > > Changes since v1: > > > - > > > drivers/tpm/tpm2_tis_core.c | 545 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > drivers/tpm/tpm_tis.h | 40 +++ > > > include/tpm-v2.h | 1 + > > > 3 files changed, 586 insertions(+) > > > create mode 100644 drivers/tpm/tpm2_tis_core.c > > > > [..] > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/tpm/tpm_tis.h b/drivers/tpm/tpm_tis.h > > > index 2a160fe05c9a..fde3bb71f7c2 100644 > > > --- a/drivers/tpm/tpm_tis.h > > > +++ b/drivers/tpm/tpm_tis.h > > > @@ -21,6 +21,37 @@ > > > #include <linux/compiler.h> > > > #include <linux/types.h> > > > > > > +struct tpm_tis_phy_ops { > > > + int (*read_bytes)(struct udevice *udev, u32 addr, u16 len, > > > + u8 *result); > > > + int (*write_bytes)(struct udevice *udev, u32 addr, u16 len, > > > + const u8 *value); > > > + int (*read16)(struct udevice *udev, u32 addr, u16 *result); > > > + int (*read32)(struct udevice *udev, u32 addr, u32 *result); > > > + int (*write32)(struct udevice *udev, u32 addr, u32 src); > > > > A few points: > > > > - these need comments > > - can we use uint instead of u32 for the value args? We should use > > native types where we can > > Yes probably, I'll have a look > ` > > - it seems like this should be a driver interface - see for example > > how cros_ec.c works. It has a shared code library and the drivers each > > implement an interface similar to the above, but on different buses. > > In general function pointers are a sign we should be using a driver > > > > I am not sure I am following, but I'll have a look on the code you pointed > out. > > > > +}; > > > + > > > +enum tis_int_flags { > > > + TPM_GLOBAL_INT_ENABLE = 0x80000000, > > > + TPM_INTF_BURST_COUNT_STATIC = 0x100, > > > + TPM_INTF_CMD_READY_INT = 0x080, > > > + TPM_INTF_INT_EDGE_FALLING = 0x040, > > > + TPM_INTF_INT_EDGE_RISING = 0x020, > > > + TPM_INTF_INT_LEVEL_LOW = 0x010, > > > + TPM_INTF_INT_LEVEL_HIGH = 0x008, > > > + TPM_INTF_LOCALITY_CHANGE_INT = 0x004, > > > + TPM_INTF_STS_VALID_INT = 0x002, > > > + TPM_INTF_DATA_AVAIL_INT = 0x001, > > > +}; > > > + > > > +#define TPM_ACCESS(l) (0x0000 | ((l) << 12)) > > > +#define TPM_INT_ENABLE(l) (0x0008 | ((l) << 12)) > > > +#define TPM_STS(l) (0x0018 | ((l) << 12)) > > > +#define TPM_DATA_FIFO(l) (0x0024 | ((l) << 12)) > > > +#define TPM_DID_VID(l) (0x0F00 | ((l) << 12)) > > > +#define TPM_RID(l) (0x0F04 | ((l) << 12)) > > > +#define TPM_INTF_CAPS(l) (0x0014 | ((l) << 12)) > > > + > > > enum tpm_timeout { > > > TPM_TIMEOUT_MS = 5, > > > TIS_SHORT_TIMEOUT_MS = 750, > > > @@ -43,6 +74,7 @@ struct tpm_chip { > > > u8 rid; > > > unsigned long timeout_a, timeout_b, timeout_c, timeout_d; /* msec */ > > > ulong chip_type; > > > + struct tpm_tis_phy_ops *phy_ops; > > > }; > > > > > > struct tpm_input_header { > > > @@ -130,4 +162,12 @@ enum tis_status { > > > }; > > > #endif > > > > > > +int tpm_tis_open(struct udevice *udev); > > > +int tpm_tis_close(struct udevice *udev); > > > +int tpm_tis_cleanup(struct udevice *udev); > > > +int tpm_tis_send(struct udevice *udev, const u8 *buf, size_t len); > > > +int tpm_tis_recv(struct udevice *udev, u8 *buf, size_t count); > > > +int tpm_tis_get_desc(struct udevice *udev, char *buf, int size); > > > +int tpm_tis_init(struct udevice *udev); > > > +void tpm_tis_ops_register(struct udevice *udev, struct tpm_tis_phy_ops *ops); > > > > comments on all of these > > > > > #endif > > > diff --git a/include/tpm-v2.h b/include/tpm-v2.h > > > index 247b38696766..3e48e358613f 100644 > > > --- a/include/tpm-v2.h > > > +++ b/include/tpm-v2.h > > > @@ -378,6 +378,7 @@ enum { > > > TPM_STS_DATA_EXPECT = 1 << 3, > > > TPM_STS_SELF_TEST_DONE = 1 << 2, > > > TPM_STS_RESPONSE_RETRY = 1 << 1, > > > + TPM_STS_READ_ZERO = 0x23 > > > > Does this below in another patch? > > > > It's a general tpm2 update. I can move it to the driver patch if it makes > more sense. > > > > }; > > > > > > enum { > > > -- > > > 2.32.0.rc0 > > > > > > > I feel that this API could be useful in reducing code duplication, but > > in fact it has just created more, so far as I can see from this series > > :-) So I think you should convert at least one driver to show its > > value (and not make things any worse). > > The mmio tpm driver uses it and instead of ~700 lines (like the tpmv2 spi > driver) it drops down to ~100. I don't have access to any other TPM > hardware to rewrite any of those. Yes, but I hope you see my point, that you have added a new interface. It is definitely better than adding a new driver and duplicating all the code, but it is still one more copy and in fact, the code is duplicated. Can you get access to TPM hardware? I see that you have offered to be the maintainer for this subsystem, so I think that would be useful. Can sandbox use your new API? Regards, Simon
> > > > TPM_STS_SELF_TEST_DONE = 1 << 2, [...] > > > > TPM_STS_RESPONSE_RETRY = 1 << 1, > > > > + TPM_STS_READ_ZERO = 0x23 > > > > > > Does this below in another patch? > > > > > > > It's a general tpm2 update. I can move it to the driver patch if it makes > > more sense. > > > > > > }; > > > > > > > > enum { > > > > -- > > > > 2.32.0.rc0 > > > > > > > > > > I feel that this API could be useful in reducing code duplication, but > > > in fact it has just created more, so far as I can see from this series > > > :-) So I think you should convert at least one driver to show its > > > value (and not make things any worse). > > > > The mmio tpm driver uses it and instead of ~700 lines (like the tpmv2 spi > > driver) it drops down to ~100. I don't have access to any other TPM > > hardware to rewrite any of those. > > Yes, but I hope you see my point, that you have added a new interface. > It is definitely better than adding a new driver and duplicating all > the code, but it is still one more copy and in fact, the code is > duplicated. > I get the point but I don't exactly agree here. It's not duplicated code. We need to plug in the mmio driver. The original code was just doing what every TPM does. It carried the TIS relevant code in the new driver. The new approach defines an API for everyone to use and the new driver uses it. So I don't see the duplication here. You need the TIS code one way or the other. Now it's on a common interface for everyone to use. > Can you get access to TPM hardware? I see that you have offered to be > the maintainer for this subsystem, so I think that would be useful. > Can sandbox use your new API? It depends, is the sandbox TIS compatible? If it is sure we could use it. I offered to maintain the drivers because I wrote the API and I have an idea of how TPMs should work. If that means I'll have to go and get every hardware we support, I'll just volunteer into maintaining the TIS layer. Moreover I dont see why I should start porting drivers to use that API. People decided to duplicate that code in every driver (in fact multiple times). I am happy to work with you on the cr50 i2c driver if that would help. Regards /Ilias > > Regards, > Simon
Hi Ilias, On Mon, 12 Jul 2021 at 08:03, Ilias Apalodimas <ilias.apalodimas@linaro.org> wrote: > > > > > > TPM_STS_SELF_TEST_DONE = 1 << 2, > > [...] > > > > > > TPM_STS_RESPONSE_RETRY = 1 << 1, > > > > > + TPM_STS_READ_ZERO = 0x23 > > > > > > > > Does this below in another patch? > > > > > > > > > > It's a general tpm2 update. I can move it to the driver patch if it makes > > > more sense. > > > > > > > > }; > > > > > > > > > > enum { > > > > > -- > > > > > 2.32.0.rc0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > I feel that this API could be useful in reducing code duplication, but > > > > in fact it has just created more, so far as I can see from this series > > > > :-) So I think you should convert at least one driver to show its > > > > value (and not make things any worse). > > > > > > The mmio tpm driver uses it and instead of ~700 lines (like the tpmv2 spi > > > driver) it drops down to ~100. I don't have access to any other TPM > > > hardware to rewrite any of those. > > > > Yes, but I hope you see my point, that you have added a new interface. > > It is definitely better than adding a new driver and duplicating all > > the code, but it is still one more copy and in fact, the code is > > duplicated. > > > > I get the point but I don't exactly agree here. It's not duplicated code. > We need to plug in the mmio driver. The original code was just doing what > every TPM does. It carried the TIS relevant code in the new driver. > The new approach defines an API for everyone to use and the new driver uses it. > So I don't see the duplication here. You need the TIS code one way or the > other. Now it's on a common interface for everyone to use. Well how about converting a TPM blindly and then we'll find someone to test it? > > > Can you get access to TPM hardware? I see that you have offered to be > > the maintainer for this subsystem, so I think that would be useful. > > Can sandbox use your new API? > > It depends, is the sandbox TIS compatible? If it is sure we could use it. At present sandbox implements the tpm_ops API. So if we did that we would need to tear it apart to insert this new API as well. > I offered to maintain the drivers because I wrote the API and I have an > idea of how TPMs should work. If that means I'll have to go and get every > hardware we support, I'll just volunteer into maintaining the TIS layer. > Moreover I dont see why I should start porting drivers to use that API. > People decided to duplicate that code in every driver (in fact multiple times). See https://xkcd.com/927/ :-) > > I am happy to work with you on the cr50 i2c driver if that would help. Sure that might be easier as I can definitely test it. Regards, Siomn
Hi Simon, > > > [...] > > > Yes, but I hope you see my point, that you have added a new interface. > > > It is definitely better than adding a new driver and duplicating all > > > the code, but it is still one more copy and in fact, the code is > > > duplicated. > > > > > > > I get the point but I don't exactly agree here. It's not duplicated code. > > We need to plug in the mmio driver. The original code was just doing what > > every TPM does. It carried the TIS relevant code in the new driver. > > The new approach defines an API for everyone to use and the new driver uses it. > > So I don't see the duplication here. You need the TIS code one way or the > > other. Now it's on a common interface for everyone to use. > > Well how about converting a TPM blindly and then we'll find someone to test it? Let's do the cr50 > > > > > > Can you get access to TPM hardware? I see that you have offered to be > > > the maintainer for this subsystem, so I think that would be useful. > > > Can sandbox use your new API? > > > > It depends, is the sandbox TIS compatible? If it is sure we could use it. > > At present sandbox implements the tpm_ops API. So if we did that we > would need to tear it apart to insert this new API as well. Ok then that might make too much sense for the sandbox. > > > I offered to maintain the drivers because I wrote the API and I have an > > idea of how TPMs should work. If that means I'll have to go and get every > > hardware we support, I'll just volunteer into maintaining the TIS layer. > > Moreover I dont see why I should start porting drivers to use that API. > > People decided to duplicate that code in every driver (in fact multiple times). > > See https://xkcd.com/927/ :-) > Yea I don't disagree with that. That's one of the points of adding myself as a maintainer for the entire tpm/drivers/*. I can just reply 'no thanks' at least for new drivers that don't use it. But frankly I don't see why, adding a new drivers, while using the TIS API boils down to a few lines of code defining the bus accesses > > > > I am happy to work with you on the cr50 i2c driver if that would help. > > Sure that might be easier as I can definitely test it. Ok, let me have a look at that, I still think the patch should go in regardless though. We can always send a follow up for cr50 once we are done testing Cheers /Ilias > > Regards, > Siomn
Hi Ilias, On Mon, 12 Jul 2021 at 23:51, Ilias Apalodimas <ilias.apalodimas@linaro.org> wrote: > > Hi Simon, > > > > > > [...] > > > > > Yes, but I hope you see my point, that you have added a new interface. > > > > It is definitely better than adding a new driver and duplicating all > > > > the code, but it is still one more copy and in fact, the code is > > > > duplicated. > > > > > > > > > > I get the point but I don't exactly agree here. It's not duplicated code. > > > We need to plug in the mmio driver. The original code was just doing what > > > every TPM does. It carried the TIS relevant code in the new driver. > > > The new approach defines an API for everyone to use and the new driver uses it. > > > So I don't see the duplication here. You need the TIS code one way or the > > > other. Now it's on a common interface for everyone to use. > > > > Well how about converting a TPM blindly and then we'll find someone to test it? > > Let's do the cr50 > > > > > > > > > > Can you get access to TPM hardware? I see that you have offered to be > > > > the maintainer for this subsystem, so I think that would be useful. > > > > Can sandbox use your new API? > > > > > > It depends, is the sandbox TIS compatible? If it is sure we could use it. > > > > At present sandbox implements the tpm_ops API. So if we did that we > > would need to tear it apart to insert this new API as well. > > Ok then that might make too much sense for the sandbox. > > > > > > I offered to maintain the drivers because I wrote the API and I have an > > > idea of how TPMs should work. If that means I'll have to go and get every > > > hardware we support, I'll just volunteer into maintaining the TIS layer. > > > Moreover I dont see why I should start porting drivers to use that API. > > > People decided to duplicate that code in every driver (in fact multiple times). > > > > See https://xkcd.com/927/ :-) > > > > Yea I don't disagree with that. That's one of the points of adding myself > as a maintainer for the entire tpm/drivers/*. I can just reply 'no thanks' > at least for new drivers that don't use it. But frankly I don't see why, > adding a new drivers, while using the TIS API boils down to a few lines of > code defining the bus accesses > > > > > > > I am happy to work with you on the cr50 i2c driver if that would help. > > > > Sure that might be easier as I can definitely test it. > > Ok, let me have a look at that, I still think the patch should go in > regardless though. We can always send a follow up for cr50 once we are > done testing Well if you set it up as an MMIO uclass with a sandbox test then I think there is enough value to this approach and we avoid the xkcd issue. Regards, Simon
diff --git a/drivers/tpm/tpm2_tis_core.c b/drivers/tpm/tpm2_tis_core.c new file mode 100644 index 000000000000..9860ce2379e0 --- /dev/null +++ b/drivers/tpm/tpm2_tis_core.c @@ -0,0 +1,545 @@ +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 +/* + * Copyright (c) 2020, Linaro Limited + * + * Based on the Linux TIS core interface + */ + +#include <common.h> +#include <dm.h> +#include <tpm-v2.h> +#include <linux/delay.h> +#include <linux/unaligned/be_byteshift.h> +#include "tpm_tis.h" + +/** + * tpm_tis_get_desc - Get the TPM description + * + * @udev: udevice + * @buf: buffer to fill data + * @size: buffer size + * + * @Return: Number of characters written (or would have been written) in buffer + */ +int tpm_tis_get_desc(struct udevice *udev, char *buf, int size) +{ + struct tpm_chip *chip = dev_get_priv(udev); + + if (size < 80) + return -ENOSPC; + + return snprintf(buf, size, + "%s v2.0: VendorID 0x%04x, DeviceID 0x%04x, RevisionID 0x%02x [%s]", + udev->name, chip->vend_dev & 0xFFFF, + chip->vend_dev >> 16, chip->rid, + (chip->is_open ? "open" : "closed")); +} + +/** + * tpm_tis_check_locality - Check the current TPM locality + * + * @udev: udevice + * @loc: locality + * + * Return: True if the tested locality matches + */ +static bool tpm_tis_check_locality(struct udevice *udev, int loc) +{ + struct tpm_chip *chip = dev_get_priv(udev); + struct tpm_tis_phy_ops *phy_ops = chip->phy_ops; + u8 locality; + + if (!phy_ops) + return false; + + phy_ops->read_bytes(udev, TPM_ACCESS(loc), 1, &locality); + if ((locality & (TPM_ACCESS_ACTIVE_LOCALITY | TPM_ACCESS_VALID | + TPM_ACCESS_REQUEST_USE)) == + (TPM_ACCESS_ACTIVE_LOCALITY | TPM_ACCESS_VALID)) { + chip->locality = loc; + return true; + } + + return false; +} + +/** + * tpm_tis_request_locality - Request a locality from the TPM + * + * @udev: udevce + * @loc: requested locality + * + * Return: 0 on success -1 on failure + */ +int tpm_tis_request_locality(struct udevice *udev, int loc) +{ + struct tpm_chip *chip = dev_get_priv(udev); + struct tpm_tis_phy_ops *phy_ops = chip->phy_ops; + u8 buf = TPM_ACCESS_REQUEST_USE; + unsigned long start, stop; + + if (!phy_ops) + return -1; + + if (tpm_tis_check_locality(udev, loc)) + return 0; + + phy_ops->write_bytes(udev, TPM_ACCESS(loc), 1, &buf); + start = get_timer(0); + stop = chip->timeout_a; + do { + if (tpm_tis_check_locality(udev, loc)) + return 0; + mdelay(TPM_TIMEOUT_MS); + } while (get_timer(start) < stop); + + return -1; +} + +/** + * tpm_tis_status - Check the current device status + * + * @udev: udevice + * @status: return value of status + * + * Return: 0 on success, negative on failure + */ +static int tpm_tis_status(struct udevice *udev, u8 *status) +{ + struct tpm_chip *chip = dev_get_priv(udev); + struct tpm_tis_phy_ops *phy_ops = chip->phy_ops; + + if (!phy_ops) + return -EINVAL; + + if (chip->locality < 0) + return -EINVAL; + + phy_ops->read_bytes(udev, TPM_STS(chip->locality), 1, status); + + if ((*status & TPM_STS_READ_ZERO)) { + log_err("TPM returned invalid status\n"); + return -EINVAL; + } + + return 0; +} + +/** + * tpm_tis_release_locality - Release the requested locality + * + * @udev: udevice + * @loc: requested locality + * + * Return: 0 on success, negative on failure + */ +int tpm_tis_release_locality(struct udevice *udev, int loc) +{ + struct tpm_chip *chip = dev_get_priv(udev); + struct tpm_tis_phy_ops *phy_ops = chip->phy_ops; + u8 buf = TPM_ACCESS_ACTIVE_LOCALITY; + int ret; + + if (!phy_ops) + return -1; + + if (chip->locality < 0) + return 0; + + ret = phy_ops->write_bytes(udev, TPM_ACCESS(loc), 1, &buf); + if (!ret) + chip->locality = -1; + + return ret; +} + +/** + * tpm_tis_wait_for_stat - Wait for TPM to become ready + * + * @udev: udev + * @mask: mask to match + * @timeout: timeout for retries + * @status: current status + * + * Return: 0 on success, negative on failure + */ +static int tpm_tis_wait_for_stat(struct udevice *udev, u8 mask, + unsigned long timeout, u8 *status) +{ + unsigned long start = get_timer(0); + unsigned long stop = timeout; + int ret; + + do { + mdelay(TPM_TIMEOUT_MS); + ret = tpm_tis_status(udev, status); + if (ret) + return ret; + + if ((*status & mask) == mask) + return 0; + } while (get_timer(start) < stop); + + return -ETIMEDOUT; +} + +/** + * tpm_tis_get_burstcount - Get the burstcount for the data FIFO + * + * @udev: udevice + * @burstcount: current burstcount + * + * Return: 0 on success, negative on failure + */ +static int tpm_tis_get_burstcount(struct udevice *udev, size_t *burstcount) +{ + struct tpm_chip *chip = dev_get_priv(udev); + struct tpm_tis_phy_ops *phy_ops = chip->phy_ops; + unsigned long start, stop; + u32 burst; + + if (!phy_ops) + return -EINVAL; + + if (chip->locality < 0) + return -EINVAL; + + /* wait for burstcount */ + start = get_timer(0); + /* + * This is the TPMv2 defined timeout. Change this in case you want to + * make the driver compatile to TPMv1 + */ + stop = chip->timeout_a; + do { + phy_ops->read32(udev, TPM_STS(chip->locality), &burst); + *burstcount = (burst >> 8) & 0xFFFF; + if (*burstcount) + return 0; + + mdelay(TPM_TIMEOUT_MS); + } while (get_timer(start) < stop); + + return -ETIMEDOUT; +} + +/** + * tpm_tis_ready - Cancel pending comands and get the device on a ready state + * + * @udev: udevcie + * + * Return: 0 on success, negative on failure + */ +static int tpm_tis_ready(struct udevice *udev) +{ + struct tpm_chip *chip = dev_get_priv(udev); + struct tpm_tis_phy_ops *phy_ops = chip->phy_ops; + u8 data = TPM_STS_COMMAND_READY; + + if (!phy_ops) + return -1; + + /* This will cancel any pending commands */ + return phy_ops->write_bytes(udev, TPM_STS(chip->locality), 1, &data); +} + +/** + * tpm_tis_send - send data to the device + * + * @udev: udevice + * @buf: buffer to send + * @len: size of the buffer + * + * Return: number of bytes sent or negative on failure + */ +int tpm_tis_send(struct udevice *udev, const u8 *buf, size_t len) +{ + struct tpm_chip *chip = dev_get_priv(udev); + struct tpm_tis_phy_ops *phy_ops = chip->phy_ops; + size_t burstcnt, wr_size, sent = 0; + u8 data = TPM_STS_GO; + u8 status; + int ret; + + if (!phy_ops) + return -EINVAL; + + if (!chip) + return -ENODEV; + + ret = tpm_tis_request_locality(udev, 0); + if (ret < 0) + return -EBUSY; + + ret = tpm_tis_status(udev, &status); + if (ret) + goto release_locality; + + if (!(status & TPM_STS_COMMAND_READY)) { + ret = tpm_tis_ready(udev); + if (ret) { + log_err("Can't cancel previous TPM operation\n"); + goto release_locality; + } + ret = tpm_tis_wait_for_stat(udev, TPM_STS_COMMAND_READY, + chip->timeout_b, &status); + if (ret) { + log_err("TPM not ready\n"); + goto release_locality; + } + } + + while (len > 0) { + ret = tpm_tis_get_burstcount(udev, &burstcnt); + if (ret) + goto release_locality; + + wr_size = min(len, burstcnt); + ret = phy_ops->write_bytes(udev, TPM_DATA_FIFO(chip->locality), + wr_size, buf + sent); + if (ret < 0) + goto release_locality; + + ret = tpm_tis_wait_for_stat(udev, TPM_STS_VALID, + chip->timeout_c, &status); + if (ret) + goto release_locality; + + sent += wr_size; + len -= wr_size; + /* make sure the TPM expects more data */ + if (len && !(status & TPM_STS_DATA_EXPECT)) { + ret = -EIO; + goto release_locality; + } + } + + /* + * Make a final check ensuring everything is ok and the TPM expects no + * more data + */ + ret = tpm_tis_wait_for_stat(udev, TPM_STS_VALID, chip->timeout_c, + &status); + if (ret) + goto release_locality; + + if (status & TPM_STS_DATA_EXPECT) { + ret = -EIO; + goto release_locality; + } + + ret = phy_ops->write_bytes(udev, TPM_STS(chip->locality), 1, &data); + if (ret) + goto release_locality; + + tpm_tis_release_locality(udev, chip->locality); + return sent; + +release_locality: + tpm_tis_ready(udev); + tpm_tis_release_locality(udev, chip->locality); + + return ret; +} + +/** + * tpm_tis_recv_data - Receive data from a device. Wrapper for tpm_tis_recv + * + * @udev: udevice + * @buf: buffer to copy data + * @size: buffer size + * + * Return: bytes read or negative on failure + */ +static int tpm_tis_recv_data(struct udevice *udev, u8 *buf, size_t count) +{ + struct tpm_chip *chip = dev_get_priv(udev); + struct tpm_tis_phy_ops *phy_ops = chip->phy_ops; + int size = 0, len, ret; + size_t burstcnt; + u8 status; + + if (!phy_ops) + return -EINVAL; + + while (size < count && + tpm_tis_wait_for_stat(udev, TPM_STS_DATA_AVAIL | TPM_STS_VALID, + chip->timeout_c, &status) == 0) { + ret = tpm_tis_get_burstcount(udev, &burstcnt); + if (ret) + return burstcnt; + + len = min_t(int, burstcnt, count - size); + ret = phy_ops->read_bytes(udev, TPM_DATA_FIFO(chip->locality), + len, buf + size); + if (ret < 0) + return ret; + + size += len; + } + + return size; +} + +/** + * tpm_tis_recv - Receive data from a device + * + * @udev: udevice + * @buf: buffer to copy data + * @size: buffer size + * + * Return: bytes read or negative on failure + */ +int tpm_tis_recv(struct udevice *udev, u8 *buf, size_t count) +{ + struct tpm_chip *chip = dev_get_priv(udev); + int ret; + int size, expected; + + if (!chip) + return -ENODEV; + + if (count < TPM_HEADER_SIZE) + return -E2BIG; + + ret = tpm_tis_request_locality(udev, 0); + if (ret < 0) + return -EBUSY; + + size = tpm_tis_recv_data(udev, buf, TPM_HEADER_SIZE); + if (size < TPM_HEADER_SIZE) { + log_err("TPM error, unable to read header\n"); + goto out; + } + + expected = get_unaligned_be32(buf + TPM_CMD_COUNT_OFFSET); + if (expected > count) { + size = -EIO; + log_warning("Too much data: %d > %zu\n", expected, count); + goto out; + } + + size += tpm_tis_recv_data(udev, &buf[TPM_HEADER_SIZE], + expected - TPM_HEADER_SIZE); + if (size < expected) { + log(LOGC_NONE, LOGL_ERR, + "TPM error, unable to read remaining bytes of result\n"); + size = -EIO; + goto out; + } + +out: + tpm_tis_ready(udev); + tpm_tis_release_locality(udev, chip->locality); + + return size; +} + +/** tpm_tis_cleanup - Get the device in ready state and release locality + * + * @udev: udevice + * + * Return: always 0 + */ +int tpm_tis_cleanup(struct udevice *udev) +{ + struct tpm_chip *chip = dev_get_priv(udev); + + tpm_tis_ready(udev); + tpm_tis_release_locality(udev, chip->locality); + + return 0; +} + +/** + * tpm_tis_open - Open the device and request locality 0 + * + * @udev: udevice + * + * Return: 0 on success, negative on failure + */ +int tpm_tis_open(struct udevice *udev) +{ + struct tpm_chip *chip = dev_get_priv(udev); + int ret; + + if (chip->is_open) + return -EBUSY; + + ret = tpm_tis_request_locality(udev, 0); + if (!ret) + chip->is_open = 1; + + return ret; +} + +/** + * tpm_tis_ops_register - register the PHY ops for the device + * + * @udev: udevice + * @ops: bus ops for the device + */ +void tpm_tis_ops_register(struct udevice *udev, struct tpm_tis_phy_ops *ops) +{ + struct tpm_chip *chip = dev_get_priv(udev); + + chip->phy_ops = ops; +} + +/** + * tpm_tis_init - inititalize the device + * + * @udev: udevice + * + * Return: 0 on success, negative on failure + */ +int tpm_tis_init(struct udevice *udev) +{ + struct tpm_chip *chip = dev_get_priv(udev); + struct tpm_tis_phy_ops *phy_ops = chip->phy_ops; + int ret; + u32 tmp; + + if (!phy_ops) + return -1; + ret = tpm_tis_request_locality(udev, 0); + if (ret) + return ret; + + chip->timeout_a = TIS_SHORT_TIMEOUT_MS; + chip->timeout_b = TIS_LONG_TIMEOUT_MS; + chip->timeout_c = TIS_SHORT_TIMEOUT_MS; + chip->timeout_d = TIS_SHORT_TIMEOUT_MS; + + /* Disable interrupts */ + phy_ops->read32(udev, TPM_INT_ENABLE(chip->locality), &tmp); + tmp |= TPM_INTF_CMD_READY_INT | TPM_INTF_LOCALITY_CHANGE_INT | + TPM_INTF_DATA_AVAIL_INT | TPM_INTF_STS_VALID_INT; + tmp &= ~TPM_GLOBAL_INT_ENABLE; + phy_ops->write32(udev, TPM_INT_ENABLE(chip->locality), tmp); + + phy_ops->read_bytes(udev, TPM_RID(chip->locality), 1, &chip->rid); + phy_ops->read32(udev, TPM_DID_VID(chip->locality), &chip->vend_dev); + + return tpm_tis_release_locality(udev, chip->locality); +} + +/** + * tpm_tis_close - Close the device and release locality + * + * @udev: udevice + * + * Return: 0 on success, negative on failure + */ +int tpm_tis_close(struct udevice *udev) +{ + struct tpm_chip *chip = dev_get_priv(udev); + int ret = 0; + + if (chip->is_open) { + ret = tpm_tis_release_locality(udev, chip->locality); + chip->is_open = 0; + } + + return ret; +} diff --git a/drivers/tpm/tpm_tis.h b/drivers/tpm/tpm_tis.h index 2a160fe05c9a..fde3bb71f7c2 100644 --- a/drivers/tpm/tpm_tis.h +++ b/drivers/tpm/tpm_tis.h @@ -21,6 +21,37 @@ #include <linux/compiler.h> #include <linux/types.h> +struct tpm_tis_phy_ops { + int (*read_bytes)(struct udevice *udev, u32 addr, u16 len, + u8 *result); + int (*write_bytes)(struct udevice *udev, u32 addr, u16 len, + const u8 *value); + int (*read16)(struct udevice *udev, u32 addr, u16 *result); + int (*read32)(struct udevice *udev, u32 addr, u32 *result); + int (*write32)(struct udevice *udev, u32 addr, u32 src); +}; + +enum tis_int_flags { + TPM_GLOBAL_INT_ENABLE = 0x80000000, + TPM_INTF_BURST_COUNT_STATIC = 0x100, + TPM_INTF_CMD_READY_INT = 0x080, + TPM_INTF_INT_EDGE_FALLING = 0x040, + TPM_INTF_INT_EDGE_RISING = 0x020, + TPM_INTF_INT_LEVEL_LOW = 0x010, + TPM_INTF_INT_LEVEL_HIGH = 0x008, + TPM_INTF_LOCALITY_CHANGE_INT = 0x004, + TPM_INTF_STS_VALID_INT = 0x002, + TPM_INTF_DATA_AVAIL_INT = 0x001, +}; + +#define TPM_ACCESS(l) (0x0000 | ((l) << 12)) +#define TPM_INT_ENABLE(l) (0x0008 | ((l) << 12)) +#define TPM_STS(l) (0x0018 | ((l) << 12)) +#define TPM_DATA_FIFO(l) (0x0024 | ((l) << 12)) +#define TPM_DID_VID(l) (0x0F00 | ((l) << 12)) +#define TPM_RID(l) (0x0F04 | ((l) << 12)) +#define TPM_INTF_CAPS(l) (0x0014 | ((l) << 12)) + enum tpm_timeout { TPM_TIMEOUT_MS = 5, TIS_SHORT_TIMEOUT_MS = 750, @@ -43,6 +74,7 @@ struct tpm_chip { u8 rid; unsigned long timeout_a, timeout_b, timeout_c, timeout_d; /* msec */ ulong chip_type; + struct tpm_tis_phy_ops *phy_ops; }; struct tpm_input_header { @@ -130,4 +162,12 @@ enum tis_status { }; #endif +int tpm_tis_open(struct udevice *udev); +int tpm_tis_close(struct udevice *udev); +int tpm_tis_cleanup(struct udevice *udev); +int tpm_tis_send(struct udevice *udev, const u8 *buf, size_t len); +int tpm_tis_recv(struct udevice *udev, u8 *buf, size_t count); +int tpm_tis_get_desc(struct udevice *udev, char *buf, int size); +int tpm_tis_init(struct udevice *udev); +void tpm_tis_ops_register(struct udevice *udev, struct tpm_tis_phy_ops *ops); #endif diff --git a/include/tpm-v2.h b/include/tpm-v2.h index 247b38696766..3e48e358613f 100644 --- a/include/tpm-v2.h +++ b/include/tpm-v2.h @@ -378,6 +378,7 @@ enum { TPM_STS_DATA_EXPECT = 1 << 3, TPM_STS_SELF_TEST_DONE = 1 << 2, TPM_STS_RESPONSE_RETRY = 1 << 1, + TPM_STS_READ_ZERO = 0x23 }; enum {
There's a lot of code duplication in U-Boot right now. All the TPM TIS compatible drivers we have at the moment have their own copy of a TIS implementation. So let's create a common layer which implements the core TIS functions. Any driver added from now own, which is compatible with the TIS spec, will only have to provide the underlying bus communication mechanisms. Signed-off-by: Ilias Apalodimas <ilias.apalodimas@linaro.org> --- Changes since v1: - drivers/tpm/tpm2_tis_core.c | 545 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ drivers/tpm/tpm_tis.h | 40 +++ include/tpm-v2.h | 1 + 3 files changed, 586 insertions(+) create mode 100644 drivers/tpm/tpm2_tis_core.c