[SeaBIOS] SeaBIOS Digest, Vol 72, Issue 33

[Stefan Berger]

On 12/22/2015 10:40 AM, Kevin O'Connor wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 11:50:07AM -0500, Stefan Berger wrote:
>> "Kevin O'Connor" <kevin at koconnor.net> wrote on 12/17/2015 05:22:56 PM:
>>
>>> On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 11:32:05AM +0000, Wim Vervoorn wrote:
>>>> Hello,
>>>>
>>>> I noticed that a lot of work is going on for the TPM support in
>> SeaBIOS.
>>>> All of this work is TPM 1.2 based. I was wondering if there are any
>>>> plans to support TPM 2.0 in the future.
>>> I'm not aware of any plans.
>> We're working on it...
>>
>>
>> So maybe you have some comments to the following:
>>
>> There will be a patch for probing the TPM TIS hardware interface for
>> whether there's a TPM 1.2 or a TPM 2.
>> We then have a patch for prefixing all TPM 1.2 functions with tpm12_ and
>> then introduce functions like these ones here:
>>
>> static ... tpm12_foo() { ... }
>> static ... tpm2_foo() { ... }
>>
>> tpm_foo()
>> {
>>      [...]
>>
>>      switch (tpmversion) {
>>      case TPM_VERSION_1_2:
>>          tpm12_foo()
>>          break;
>>      case TPM_VERSION_2:
>>          tpm2_foo();
>>          break;
>>      }
>>
>>      [...]
>> }
> Is the difference between 1.2 and 2.0 so large that the above is
> needed?

At some point I'll bring the TPM 2 patches back to life following the 
many recent changes... Now my question is how to organize the code. 
Should there be one file where we essentially have the above type of 
code branching into TPM 1.2 & TPM 2 specific functions and TPM 1.2 and 
TPM 2 code in separate files or the above type of functions at the end 
of the current file and then a section with TPM 1.2 code and another 
with TPM 2? It's a few patches building on top of each other, so want to 
avoid churn...

Cheers!

    Stefan

>
> -Kevin
>
> _______________________________________________
> SeaBIOS mailing list
> SeaBIOS at seabios.org
> http://www.seabios.org/mailman/listinfo/seabios
>