Varun Wadekar wrote at Saturday, November 05, 2011 2:12 AM:
> >> + res = platform_get_resource(pdev, IORESOURCE_MEM, 0);
> > Don't you need to call request_mem_region() between get_resource() and
> > ioremap()?
>
> I am remapping the module register space. Used IORESOURCE_IO instead.
But you should be using IORESOURCE_MEM; that's what it is, and that's what
all the other entries in arch/arm/mach-tegra/devices.c use.
And I don't think simply changing the type of the resource would remove
the need to request that region of MEM or IO space.
> >> + /* Initialize the vde clock */
> >> + dd->aes_clk = clk_get(dev, "vde");
> > That clock doesn't exist in the mainline kernel; "bsev" exists for device
> > "tegra-aes"...
>
> We need to use the "vde" clock. I will submit a patch to add the "vde"
> clock. "bsev" might not be needed at the moment.
> [from another email by Varun]
> Just checked and we have "vde" as a duplicate clock for "tegra-aes"
Ah right, I do see the CLK_DUPLICATE line. So, this is probably fine.
> >> + err = clk_set_rate(dd->aes_clk, ULONG_MAX);
> > That's a little fast... What rate should it be running at. Is this
> > something the driver should be configuring, or should the board file or
> > device-tree be configuring this?
>
> We need to run the hardware at the highest speed. AFAIK,
> clk_set_rate(ULONG_MAX) will set the clock rate at the max clock
> specified for the clock. Need to get every bit of performance from that
> piece of hardware.
Hmmm. This still seems wrong. Hopefully somebody else more familiar with
clocks will chime in either saying this is fine, or pointing out a better
way to do this.
> >> +static struct platform_driver tegra_aes_driver = {
> >> + .probe = tegra_aes_probe,
> >> + .remove = __devexit_p(tegra_aes_remove),
> >> + .driver = {
> >> + .name = "tegra-aes",
> >> + .owner = THIS_MODULE,
> >> + },
> >> +};
> >>
> > Can you please allow instantiation from device-tree too; see drivers/
> > gpio/gpio-tegra.c's tegra_gpio_of_match[] for an example.
>
> Actually, I am planning to add complete device tree support in the next
> patch. But if you insist, I can add partial support here and then
> complete it in the next patch.
Why not just add complete device-tree support from the start? Since this
driver uses no platform data, isn't the of match table the /only/ device-
tree support this driver needs?
--
nvpublic
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-crypto" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
