On Tue, Sep 01, 2020 at 12:57:19PM +0200, Corentin Labbe wrote: > On Tue, Sep 01, 2020 at 11:32:49AM +0200, Maxime Ripard wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 09:30:59AM +0200, Martin Cerveny wrote: > > > Like A33 "sun4i-ss" has a difference, it give SHA1 digest > > > directly in BE. So add new compatible. > > > > > > Tested-by: Martin Cerveny <m.cerveny@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > The Tested-by tag is for the other developpers. You're very much > > expected to have tested your patch before contributing it. > > > > > Signed-off-by: Martin Cerveny <m.cerveny@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > --- > > > .../bindings/crypto/allwinner,sun4i-a10-crypto.yaml | 5 ++++- > > > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/crypto/allwinner,sun4i-a10-crypto.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/crypto/allwinner,sun4i-a10-crypto.yaml > > > index fc823572b..180efd13a 100644 > > > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/crypto/allwinner,sun4i-a10-crypto.yaml > > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/crypto/allwinner,sun4i-a10-crypto.yaml > > > @@ -25,6 +25,7 @@ properties: > > > - const: allwinner,sun4i-a10-crypto > > > - items: > > > - const: allwinner,sun8i-a33-crypto > > > + - const: allwinner,sun8i-v3s-crypto > > > > If it's compatible with the A33, why do we need to introduce a new compatible? > > > > > > > > reg: > > > maxItems: 1 > > > @@ -59,7 +60,9 @@ if: > > > properties: > > > compatible: > > > contains: > > > - const: allwinner,sun6i-a31-crypto > > > + oneOf: > > > + - const: allwinner,sun6i-a31-crypto > > > + - const: allwinner,sun8i-v3s-crypto > > > > I guess the A33 compatible should be on that list as well? > > This is the list of "need reset". > So we cannot use allwinner,sun8i-a33-crypto > Probably this explanation should be in the commit message. But the A33 has a reset in the DTSI Maxime
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
