|
From: | Stefan Berger |
Subject: | Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] acpi: tpm: Add missing device identification objects |
Date: | Tue, 9 Nov 2021 09:26:46 -0500 |
User-agent: | Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.1.0 |
On 11/9/21 09:20, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Tue, Nov 09, 2021 at 09:01:51AM -0500, Stefan Berger wrote:Add missing device identification objects _STR and _UID. They will appear as files 'description' and 'uid' under Linux sysfs. Cc: Shannon Zhao <shannon.zhaosl@gmail.com> Cc: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com> Cc: Igor Mammedov <imammedo@redhat.com> Cc: Ani Sinha <ani@anisinha.ca> Fixes: https://gitlab.com/qemu-project/qemu/-/issues/708 Signed-off-by: Stefan Berger <stefanb@linux.ibm.com>Do you want this in 6.2?
Yes.
--- hw/arm/virt-acpi-build.c | 1 + hw/i386/acpi-build.c | 8 ++++++++ 2 files changed, 9 insertions(+) diff --git a/hw/arm/virt-acpi-build.c b/hw/arm/virt-acpi-build.c index 674f902652..09456424aa 100644 --- a/hw/arm/virt-acpi-build.c +++ b/hw/arm/virt-acpi-build.c @@ -228,6 +228,7 @@ static void acpi_dsdt_add_tpm(Aml *scope, VirtMachineState *vms)Aml *dev = aml_device("TPM0");aml_append(dev, aml_name_decl("_HID", aml_string("MSFT0101"))); + aml_append(dev, aml_name_decl("_STR", aml_string("TPM 2.0 Device"))); aml_append(dev, aml_name_decl("_UID", aml_int(0)));Aml *crs = aml_resource_template();diff --git a/hw/i386/acpi-build.c b/hw/i386/acpi-build.c index a3ad6abd33..5bd2160a89 100644 --- a/hw/i386/acpi-build.c +++ b/hw/i386/acpi-build.c @@ -1808,11 +1808,15 @@ build_dsdt(GArray *table_data, BIOSLinker *linker, dev = aml_device("TPM"); aml_append(dev, aml_name_decl("_HID", aml_string("MSFT0101"))); + aml_append(dev, + aml_name_decl("_STR", + aml_string("TPM 2.0 Device")));When we support more versions, won't this make us do annoying tricks to say so in the string? Why not just "TPM device" to future-proof it?
I am not sure what other version there will be and I haven't seen any other descriptions than the one reported here:
https://gitlab.com/qemu-project/qemu/-/issues/708That's why I took TPM 2.0 device. My TPM 1.2 machine doesn't report it for a TPM 1.2.
haven } else { dev = aml_device("ISA.TPM"); aml_append(dev, aml_name_decl("_HID", aml_eisaid("PNP0C31"))); } + aml_append(dev, aml_name_decl("_UID", aml_int(1)));The ACPI spec mentions also matching on _CID.
"6.1.2 _CID (Compatible ID)This optional object is used to supply OSPM with a device?s Plug and Play-Compatible Device ID. Use _CID
objects when a device has no other defined hardware standard method to report its compatible IDs"
6.1.12 _UID (Unique ID)This object provides OSPM with a logical device ID that does not change across reboots. This object is optional, but is required when the device has no other way to report a persistent unique device ID. The
_UID must be unique across all devices with either a common _HID or _CID. Is _CID a must-have for TPM now? We have _HID.
aml_append(dev, aml_name_decl("_STA", aml_int(0xF))); crs = aml_resource_template(); @@ -1840,6 +1844,8 @@ build_dsdt(GArray *table_data, BIOSLinker *linker, if (TPM_IS_CRB(tpm)) { dev = aml_device("TPM"); aml_append(dev, aml_name_decl("_HID", aml_string("MSFT0101"))); + aml_append(dev, aml_name_decl("_STR", + aml_string("TPM 2.0 Device"))); crs = aml_resource_template(); aml_append(crs, aml_memory32_fixed(TPM_CRB_ADDR_BASE, TPM_CRB_ADDR_SIZE, AML_READ_WRITE)); @@ -1847,6 +1853,8 @@ build_dsdt(GArray *table_data, BIOSLinker *linker,aml_append(dev, aml_name_decl("_STA", aml_int(0xf))); + aml_append(dev, aml_name_decl("_UID", aml_int(1)));+ tpm_build_ppi_acpi(tpm, dev);aml_append(sb_scope, dev);-- 2.31.1
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |