Re: [PATCH] tpm/tpm_crb: Access locality for non-ACPI and non-SMC start method

[Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>]

On Sun, Aug 20, 2017 at 10:41:38PM -0500, Jiandi An wrote:
> 
> 
> On 08/19/2017 12:05 PM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 11:15:36PM -0500, Jiandi An wrote:
> > > For ARM64, the locality is handled by Trust Zone in FW.
> > > The layout does not have crb_regs_head.  It is hitting
> > > the following line.
> > > dev_warn(dev, FW_BUG "Bad ACPI memory layout");
> > > 
> > > Current code excludes CRB_FL_ACPI_START and when
> > > CRB_FL_CRB_SMC_START is added around the same time
> > > locality support is added, it should also be excluded.
> > > 
> > > For goIdle and cmdReady where code was excluding
> > > CRB_FL_ACPI_START only (do nothing for ACPI start method),
> > > CRB_FL_CRB_SMC_START was also excluded as ARM64 SMC start
> > > method does not have TPM_CRB_CTRL_REQ.
> > > Change if confition to white list instead of black list.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Jiandi An <anjiandi@codeaurora.org>
> > 
> > Is this v2? If so, where is the change log?
> Based on the previous comments, I now understand that
> because of Intel PTT bug workaround, it is not appropriate
> for the patch to have title/subject "Access locality for
> only CRB_START method"
> 
> So the more descriptive patch title is "Access locality for
> only non-ACPI and non-SMC start method".  Because the patch
> is changed, I thought I start a new series.  Would you like
> me to tag this v3 and put change log even though patch title
> has changed?
> 
> Thanks
> - Jiandi

I see. Thanks for explaining.

/Jarkko