Eric Blake <[email protected]> wrote on 04/13/2015 10:43:40 AM:
> From: Eric Blake <[email protected]>
> To: Stefan Berger <[email protected]>, "Xu, Quan"
> <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <qemu-
> [email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
> Cc: Stefan Berger/Watson/IBM@IBMUS
> Date: 04/13/2015 10:43 AM
> Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 2/3] tpm: Probe for connected TPM
> 1.2 or TPM 2
>
> On 04/12/2015 02:59 PM, Stefan Berger wrote:
> > On 04/07/2015 04:54 AM, Xu, Quan wrote:
> >>
>
> >> In my opinion, I prefer to point out tpm_version in QEMU command line
> >> options, then
> >> tpm_util_test_tpmdev() tries to verify it.
> >
> > The only reason why I am not doing this was that libvirt for example
> > will need to probe for whether the additional parameter indicating the
> > TPM version is supported. Besides that I thought it should be possible
> > to probe on any platform and get a reliable result.
> >
> > Maybe Eric has a comment. I have recently seen a discussion where an
> > additional parameter to an existing option was to be added, but cannot
> > remember which option that was.
> >
>
> Hopefully, we are going to get introspection working for 2.4; at which
> point, libvirt can use that to query what options are new to any other
> command. Meanwhile, doesn't query-tpm-models already serve as a way to
> query additions on this front?
It would be a new command line option parameter tpm-version (or similar)
introduced in 2.4:
-tpmdev passthrough,id=tpm0,...,tpm-version=2 \
-device tpm-tis,id=tpm0,tpmdev=tpm0 \
It would also be reflected through an extensions of the existing
TPMPassthroughOptions in
qapi-schema.json.
{ 'type': 'TPMPassthroughOptions', 'data': { '*path' : 'str',
'*cancel-path' : 'str',
'*tpm-version' : 'str'} }
Stefan
