Re: [tpmdd-devel] Regression between Linux 3.16 and 4.8/4.9 on Lenovo X60 with coreboot

["Denis 'GNUtoo' Carikli" <GNUtoo@no-log.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1510 bytes --]

Hi Paul,

On Thu, 6 Apr 2017 10:55:57 -0600
Jason Gunthorpe <jgunthorpe@obsidianresearch.com> wrote:

> We added direct ACPI binding to the driver in addition to PNP, so if
> you have an ACPI table it goes down that path and does some additional
> validation of what is in the TPM. The BIOS must provide a
> acpi_dev_resource_memory and a ACPI_SIG_TPM2 for the ACPI entry at a
> minimum.

I am working on it[1]. This commit has not been merged and is a work in
progress. It is however available in coreboot's gerrit.

So far with it and a recent kernel and the patch mentioned above:
- The linux driver finds the TPM automatically and doesn't require
  force=1
- The driver however still require itpm=1 to fully work: without it the
  tpm is found, but I wasn't able to read the PCRs.

Since I use a rolling release distribution, the kenrel version I use
tend to change quite fast, I can re-test if needed.

I need to improve the following in my patch:
- The IDs readings obviously need to be fixed.
- I want to make it work without itpm=1 if possible. I'll test with
  INTC0102 as it is in the driver in the is_itpm function, and it was
  also suggested to me by someone on IRC.

I also still need to investigate more why the itpm workaround is needed.
Does the TPM shipped in such laptops respect the specifications?
Is the wiring bad?

References:
-----------
[1]https://review.coreboot.org/cgit/coreboot.git/commit/?id=060cf4e0f50f765f85e3ecedd836eed85d1571fe

Denis.

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]