On Fri, Nov 09, 2012 at 06:10:20PM +0200, Kasatkin, Dmitry wrote:
> Hello,
Thanks for your comments, Dmitry.
> On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 4:57 AM, Mark A. Greer <mgreer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > From: "Mark A. Greer" <mgreer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > Convert the device data for the OMAP2 SHAM crypto IP from
> > explicit platform_data to hwmod.
> >
> > CC: Paul Walmsley <paul@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Mark A. Greer <mgreer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/devices.c b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/devices.c
> > index cba60e0..f18fa50 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/devices.c
> > +++ b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/devices.c
> > @@ -501,16 +485,24 @@ static struct platform_device sham_device = {
> > static void omap_init_sham(void)
> > {
> > if (cpu_is_omap24xx()) {
> > - sham_device.resource = omap2_sham_resources;
> > - sham_device.num_resources = omap2_sham_resources_sz;
> > + struct omap_hwmod *oh;
> > + struct platform_device *pdev;
> > +
> > + oh = omap_hwmod_lookup("sham");
> > + if (!oh)
> > + return;
> > +
> > + pdev = omap_device_build("omap-sham", -1, oh, NULL, 0, NULL,
> > + 0, 0);
> > + WARN(IS_ERR(pdev), "Can't build omap_device for omap-sham\n");
> > } else if (cpu_is_omap34xx()) {
> > sham_device.resource = omap3_sham_resources;
> > sham_device.num_resources = omap3_sham_resources_sz;
> > + platform_device_register(&sham_device);
>
> Why changes are only for OMAP2?
> OMAP3 is also the same class.
This patch is specifically for omap2.
A following patch does the same for omap3.
> > diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/omap_hwmod_2xxx_interconnect_data.c b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/omap_hwmod_2xxx_interconnect_data.c
> > index 1a1287d..bb314c5 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/omap_hwmod_2xxx_interconnect_data.c
> > +++ b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/omap_hwmod_2xxx_interconnect_data.c
> > @@ -138,6 +138,15 @@ static struct omap_hwmod_addr_space omap2_rng_addr_space[] = {
> > { }
> > };
> >
> > +struct omap_hwmod_addr_space omap2xxx_sham_addrs[] = {
> > + {
> > + .pa_start = 0x480a4000,
> > + .pa_end = 0x480a4000 + 0x64 - 1,
> > + .flags = ADDR_TYPE_RT
> > + },
> > + { }
> > +};
>
> Why not using macros as it was before?
>
> OMAP24XX_SEC_SHA1MD5_BASE
I am following the precedent set in the existing code of that file
which uses the actual address instead of a macro (except for uart).
I have no preference but I believe that is how Paul prefers it.
Paul?
--
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
