On Saturday, May 24, 2014 at 09:20:03 PM, Tomasz Figa wrote: > Hi Marek, > > On 24.05.2014 13:21, Marek Vasut wrote: > > On Thursday, May 22, 2014 at 05:09:54 PM, LABBE Corentin wrote: > > > > Missing commit message. Please fix this and send a V2. > > > >> Signed-off-by: LABBE Corentin <clabbe.montjoie@xxxxxxxxx> > >> --- > >> > >> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/crypto/sunxi-ss.txt | 9 +++++++++ > >> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+) > >> create mode 100644 > >> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/crypto/sunxi-ss.txt > >> > >> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/crypto/sunxi-ss.txt > >> b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/crypto/sunxi-ss.txt new file mode > >> 100644 > >> index 0000000..356563b > >> --- /dev/null > >> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/crypto/sunxi-ss.txt > >> @@ -0,0 +1,9 @@ > >> +* Allwinner Security System found on A20 SoC > >> + > >> +Required properties: > >> +- compatible : Should be "allwinner,sun7i-a20-crypto". > > > > Why sun7i-a20 ? Is the crypto unit different in other sunxi chips ? Can > > that not be described by DT props ? > > A widely used convention is to define compatible strings after first > SoCs on which particular IP blocks appear. It is quite common among IP > blocks for which there is no well defined versioning scheme. Well yeah, that's fine. But in this case, "sun7i" is the entire group of CPUs manufactured by AW. I find that information redundant, the "allwinner,a20- crypto" would suffice. But I wonder if that IP block might have appeared even earlier ? Or if it is CPU family specific, thus "allwinner,sun7i-crypto" would be a better string ? Best regards, Marek Vasut -- 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
