[PATCH 0/6] Fix Atmel/Microchip TPMv1.2 issues

Eugen.Hristev at microchip.com Eugen.Hristev at microchip.com
Tue Nov 9 09:42:32 CET 2021

On 11/4/21 3:12 AM, Mathew McBride wrote:
> While doing bringup/rebase for the Ten64 I did some troubleshooting
> for the tpm (v1.2, NOT tpm2) command which did not appear to function,
> despite the Linux driver and tools (tcsd) working on the same board.
> Evidently the Atmel TPM driver hasn't kept up with various step
> changes in the I2C and TPM stacks, and while TPMv1.2 is quite
> dated to TPMv2 it would be nice to make some use of the hardware
> that is there.
> (Admittedly I would love to replace our hardware TPM with an fTPM
> but that is a project for another day)
> There are also subcommands in tpm-v1 which also have been
> missed in changes to the TPMv1 API and are fixed in this patchset.
> I have checked that this set isn't impacted by Ilias' TPM cleanup
> series[1] which only touches TPMv2.
> [1] - http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/uboot/cover/20211103150910.69732-1-ilias.apalodimas@linaro.org/
> Mathew McBride (6):
>    cmd: tpm-v1: fix compile error in TPMv1 list resources command
>    cmd: tpm-v1: fix load_key_by_sha1 compile errors
>    drivers: tpm: atmel_twi: drop non-DM_I2C compatibility
>    drivers: tpm: atmel_twi: do not use an offset byte
>    drivers: tpm: atmel_twi: implement get_desc operation
>    drivers: tpm: atmel_twi: fix printf specifier compile warning
>   cmd/tpm-v1.c                | 17 +++++++++++------
>   drivers/tpm/tpm_atmel_twi.c | 22 +++++++---------------
>   lib/tpm-v1.c                |  4 ++--
>   3 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-)
> --
> 2.30.1

Hello Mathew, Ilias,

Even if this series touches a Microchip driver/part that is not part of 
the at91 architecture, the patches are in my queue.
I can take them through at91 tree if this is the way to go.
Is there another custodian tree that is dedicated for such kind of 
drivers? or more specific ?

Simon, your opinion on this ?

P.S. some of the patches look to be fixes most likely, so I guess it 
would be more likely to have them as fixes for 2022.01 release ?


More information about the U-Boot mailing list