On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 08:26:53AM -0300, Daniel Henrique Barboza wrote:
On 5/11/20 6:57 AM, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 11:22:57AM +1000, David Gibson wrote:
[...]
> > It's a different guest side interface, the H_TPM_COMM hypercall
> > instead of the other PAPR TPM interface. To which "why?" is a very
> > good question, but it's there now, so there's not much we can do about
> > it.
>
> That's ok. Even though its a different guest interface, it is still
> conceptually a TPM device at a high level, so we should be reusing
> the existing <tpm> device type. At most we should add a new backend
> type
I think adding a new backend type is sensible. Re-using the passthrough type
and making the differentiation with 'model', for a device that doesn't
operate exactly as a regular vTPM but can coexist with other vTPM devices,
will make for a lot of IFs in the code.
Currently libvirt only allows a single <tpm>, but we can trivially
lift that restriction to allow multiple if desired too.
Regards,
Daniel
--
|:
https://berrange.com -o-
https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :|
|:
https://libvirt.org -o-
https://fstop138.berrange.com :|
|:
https://entangle-photo.org -o-
https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|