[PATCH v2 5/5] test: Add sandbox TPM boot measurement

[Heinrich Schuchardt]

On 1/10/23 23:32, Heinrich Schuchardt wrote:
> On 1/9/23 22:55, Eddie James wrote:
>> Use the sandbox TPM driver to measure some boot images in a unit
>> test case.
>>
>> $ ./u-boot -T -c "ut measurement"
>> Running 1 measurement tests
>> Test: measure: measurement.c
>> Failures: 0
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Eddie James <eajames at linux.ibm.com>
>> ---
>>   arch/sandbox/dts/test.dts | 12 +++++++
>>   configs/sandbox_defconfig |  1 +
>>   include/test/suites.h     |  1 +
>>   test/boot/Makefile        |  1 +
>>   test/boot/measurement.c   | 66 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>   test/cmd_ut.c             |  2 ++
>>   6 files changed, 83 insertions(+)
>>   create mode 100644 test/boot/measurement.c
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/sandbox/dts/test.dts b/arch/sandbox/dts/test.dts
>> index dffe10adbf..ad90bf0541 100644
>> --- a/arch/sandbox/dts/test.dts
>> +++ b/arch/sandbox/dts/test.dts
>> @@ -66,6 +66,17 @@
>>           osd0 = "/osd";
>>       };
>>
>> +    reserved-memory {
>> +        #address-cells = <1>;
>> +        #size-cells = <1>;
>> +        ranges;
>> +
>> +        event_log: tcg_event_log at d0e000 {
>> +            no-map;
>
> Isn't no-map misplaced? Shouldn't it be a reserved-memory property?

The placement is correct. But I still wonder why we should have this
area as no-map.

>
> If the memory region is not mapped, Linux can never access it as
> described in
> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/reserved-memory/reserved-memory.yaml.
>
> Please, document all changes to the device-tree semantics via patches
> for the Linux kernels documentation and provide a full example.
>
> Best regards
>
> Heinrich