On Sat, May 24, 2014 at 09:59:30PM +0200, Marek Vasut wrote: > On Saturday, May 24, 2014 at 09:51:59 PM, Tomasz Figa wrote: > [...] > > >>> 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 ? > > > > I'm not aware of Allwinner naming schemes too much, so please correct me > > if I'm wrong, but if A20 implies sun7i, then "allwinner,a20-crypto" > > would be better indeed. > > True. > > > Whether it was really the first SoC is another thing. Obviously this > > needs to be checked, although it isn't really that important. For this > > particular naming scheme you need to specify all the SoCs for which > > given compatible string can be used for this IP anyway, because there is > > usually no other source of information about this available (except > > directly comparing two datasheets...). > > Better get the DT stuff correctly right from the start. That's why I'm asking > what chips contains the IP block, so we can guess the right name. The name is fine, please stop this bikeshedding. Maxime -- Maxime Ripard, Free Electrons Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering http://free-electrons.com
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
