tpm_if.m: declare bus addresses as bus_size_t not bus_addr_t

[rlibby]

Summary

Do like bus_space(9) does. This fixes the build on platforms where
bus_addr_t and bus_size_t are different (like i386 PAE).

Fixes: c2e9c5bbf022 tpm: Refactor TIS and add a SPI attachment

Test Plan

I don't know how to test this beyond make tinderbox. @jhibbits please feel free to take this patch over if desired.

[jhibbits]

The only time this makes a difference is if the sizes of bus_addr_t and bus_size_t are different, and I don't have any test hardware where that's the case and I can test TPM. (Only hardware I have where that's the case is ppc Book-E, but that doesn't have a TPM).

[rlibby]

In D45287#1033196, @jhibbits wrote:

The only time this makes a difference is if the sizes of bus_addr_t and bus_size_t are different, and I don't have any test hardware where that's the case and I can test TPM. (Only hardware I have where that's the case is ppc Book-E, but that doesn't have a TPM).

Right. Not that I think this is risky, but would you like to do any testing of tpm at all before pushing to main? Otherwise I'll go ahead and push it without testing beyond make.

[jhibbits]

In D45287#1033199, @rlibby wrote:

In D45287#1033196, @jhibbits wrote:

The only time this makes a difference is if the sizes of bus_addr_t and bus_size_t are different, and I don't have any test hardware where that's the case and I can test TPM. (Only hardware I have where that's the case is ppc Book-E, but that doesn't have a TPM).

Right. Not that I think this is risky, but would you like to do any testing of tpm at all before pushing to main? Otherwise I'll go ahead and push it without testing beyond make.

No need for me to test. There's no risk for any platform Juniper uses, or my RPi I tested the original change with. Thanks for taking this!