On Thu, Oct 17, 2024 at 07:48:05AM -0500, Rob Herring wrote: > On Thu, Oct 17, 2024 at 10:23:54AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 17, 2024 at 02:43:18AM +0200, Christian Marangi wrote: > > + > > > +description: | > > > + The Inside Secure SafeXcel EIP-93 is a cryptographic engine IP block > > > + integrated in varios devices with very different and generic name from > > > + PKTE to simply vendor+EIP93. The real IP under the hood is actually > > > + developed by Inside Secure and given to license to vendors. > > > + > > > + The IP block is sold with different model based on what feature are > > > + needed and are identified with the final letter. Each letter correspond > > > + to a specific set of feature and multiple letter reflect the sum of the > > > + feature set. > > > > You write it is licensed to vendors, so are you sure these could be > > used alone, without vendor customizations/hookups etc? I think you > > should have a dedicated, SoC-specific compatible in the front. I am not > > sure if this was discussed already, though. > > Probably should, but some reason we haven't on other Inside Secure IP. > Perhaps they are just simple enough from a DT perspective to get away > without. Also, there may not be any SoC associated with some of these. > If there is an SoC, then better to add a compatible to help avoid any > future DT changes. > Would it be ok to have inside-secure,safexcel-eip93i-mediatek IF some device will require special handling? Again I expect no vendor to modify how the IP works internally with the descriptor and the common register. Vendor tag is probably not needed as Vendor are not that crazy to modify a crypto engine IP and cause disaster on the way. -- Ansuel
