On 8/29/2018 3:31 AM, Scott Wood wrote:
> On Tue, 2018-08-21 at 15:45 -0500, Rob Herring wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 20, 2018 at 1:52 PM Vabhav Sharma <vabhav.sharma@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> +/ {
>>> + model = "NXP Layerscape LX2160ARDB";
>>> + compatible = "fsl,lx2160a-rdb", "fsl,lx2160a";
>>> +
>>> + aliases {
>>> + crypto = &crypto;
>>
>> Drop this. Aliases should be numbered, and this is not a standard
>> alias name either.
>
> Is this a new rule? In any case, U-Boot looks for a "crypto" alias.
>
(Replying here, I did not see a follow-up).
Indeed, U-boot relies on the "crypto" alias.
This is true for all SoCs with CAAM crypto engine, a pretty lengthy list.
Could you please clarify?
Also: Is numbering needed even when there is a single instance of the block?
Looking at a recent discussion
https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/patch/991718
I see the proposal is for the ID to be optional:
> Alias names are often suffixed with a numeric ID, especially when there may
> be multiple instances of the same type. The ID typically corresponds to the
[...]
Thanks,
Horia
