On 12/19/2016 09:31 AM, Peter Maydell wrote:
On 19 December 2016 at 13:55, Corey Minyard wrote:
On 12/18/2016 07:47 PM, Alastair D'Silva wrote:
On Fri, 2016-12-16 at 17:35 +, Peter Maydell wrote:
Our current API seems to envisage that the slave can return a
negative value from I2CSlaveCla
On 19 December 2016 at 13:55, Corey Minyard wrote:
> On 12/18/2016 07:47 PM, Alastair D'Silva wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 2016-12-16 at 17:35 +, Peter Maydell wrote:
>>> Our current API seems to envisage that the slave can return a
>>> negative value from I2CSlaveClass::recv instead of a data byte,
>
On 12/18/2016 07:47 PM, Alastair D'Silva wrote:
On Fri, 2016-12-16 at 17:35 +, Peter Maydell wrote:
(added a couple of people to cc who might have an opinion on the i2c
protocol questions below)
I'm certainly no expert, but I'll try :)
I know a little bit and I've implemented some stuff,
On Fri, 2016-12-16 at 17:35 +, Peter Maydell wrote:
> (added a couple of people to cc who might have an opinion on the i2c
> protocol questions below)
I'm certainly no expert, but I'll try :)
> On 29 November 2016 at 19:30, Fabio Urquiza
> wrote:
> >
> > One of the problems we had to addr
(added a couple of people to cc who might have an opinion on the i2c
protocol questions below)
On 29 November 2016 at 19:30, Fabio Urquiza wrote:
> ### Overview ###
>
> The TPM passthrough feature allow a developer to test TPM functionalities,
> like Measure Boot, without the need to tamper with
### Overview ###
The TPM passthrough feature allow a developer to test TPM functionalities,
like Measure Boot, without the need to tamper with critical parts of the
host machine, ie. bootloader. It has been implemented to the x86 architecture
and have the same interface that is provided to PC mach
