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. DHB
Regards, Daniel