[U-Boot] [PATCH 17/17] tpm: Add TPM stress test

[Simon Glass]

Hi,

On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 3:50 PM, Marek Vasut <marex at denx.de> wrote:
> Dear Simon Glass,
>
>> Hi Wolfgang,
>>
>> On Sat, Nov 3, 2012 at 8:29 AM, Wolfgang Denk <wd at denx.de> wrote:
>> > Dear Simon Glass,
>> >
>> > In message <1351902453-27956-18-git-send-email-sjg at chromium.org> you wrote:
>> >> From: Luigi Semenzato <semenzato at chromium.org>
>> >>
>> >> Add a simple command to stress-test a TPM (Trusted Platform Module).
>> >>
>> >> Signed-off-by: Luigi Semenzato <semenzato at chromium.org>
>> >>
>> >> Commit-Ready: Stefan Reinauer <reinauer at google.com>
>> >> Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg at chromium.org>
>> >> ---
>> >>
>> >>  common/cmd_tpm.c |   93
>> >>  ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--- 1 files changed,
>> >>  87 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>> >
>> > See previous comments about TPM code.  Please let's dump all this
>> > unused stuff.
>>
>> As mentioned, patches are pending to enable this for two boards (ARM and
>> x86).
>
> Hm, does this TPM argument still go on?
>
> Actually, my position is I'd be all for dumping it right away (I even posted a
> patch some time ago), if it wasn't for SJG posting patches adding another TPM
> chip. Moreover, now I see there are patches for cmd_tpm.c . So I see a lot of
> effort invested into doing the TPM right.
>
> What is the actual problem with keeping this code in our codebase and patching
> it then? It's all used now, problem solved, or am I missing something?
>

Yes there has been quite a bit of effort on this. I hope we can keep
this code, and perhaps even others way wish to help. I am looking at
how to create a very simple kernel verification method based around a
FIT image.

> Best regards,
> Marek Vasut

Regards,
Simon