Jason, Gregory, On Mon, 25 May 2015 16:46:51 +0000 Jason Cooper <jason@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, May 25, 2015 at 05:39:13PM +0200, Gregory CLEMENT wrote: > > Hi Boris, Arnaud, > > > > On 22/05/2015 15:34, Boris Brezillon wrote: > > > From: Arnaud Ebalard <arno@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > Add crypto related nodes to kirkwood.dtsi. > > > > Here you use a new compatible string but with an old binding > > to let the user chose between the old and the new driver. Am I right? That was not the intention, but you're right, that's exactly what's happening here. > > I thought we had settled on the user choosing by module load/ which driver is > compiled in? The DT should be describing the hardware, not which driver the > user chooses to use. Right, but I didn't want to add new compatible strings to the old driver in the first place, neither I wanted to support the new way of defining/referencing the crypto SRAMs. ITOH, if we want to benefit from the TDMA optimization on Kirkwood SoCs, we have to add a new compatible (unlike Orion SoCs, Kirkwood ones embed a TDMA engine). This leaves the following solutions: - avoid changing the compatible in existing orion and kirkwood dtsi files - adding kirkwood compatible string support to the existing CESA driver (and I think supporting the new approach to retrieve SRAM memory region would make sense too) Best Regards, Boris -- Boris Brezillon, Free Electrons Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering http://free-electrons.com -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
