Hi Andrew > -----Original Message----- > From: abrestic@xxxxxxxxxx [mailto:abrestic@xxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of > Andrew Bresticker > Sent: 10 November 2014 17:30 > To: James Hartley > Cc: herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; Grant Likely; Rob > Herring; akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Greg Kroah-Hartman; > joe@xxxxxxxxxxx; mchehab@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; crope@xxxxxx; > jg1.han@xxxxxxxxxxx; linux-crypto@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; > devicetree@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Pawel Moll; Mark Rutland; Ian Campbell; Kumar > Gala; Ezequiel Garcia > Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] Documentation: crypto: Add DT binding info for the > img hw hash accelerator > > Hi James, > > On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 4:10 AM, James Hartley > <james.hartley@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Signed-off-by: James Hartley <james.hartley@xxxxxxxxxx> > > A brief commit message describing the hardware and where it's found would > be nice. > > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/crypto/img-hash.txt > > b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/crypto/img-hash.txt > > > @@ -0,0 +1,28 @@ > > +* Imagination Technologies Ltd. Hash Accelerator > > + > > +The hash accelerator provides hardware hashing acceleration for SHA1, > > +SHA224, SHA256 and MD5 hashes > > + > > +Required properties: > > + > > +- compatible : "img,img-hash-accelerator-rev1" > > I know I mentioned in the internal review that it would be good to have > some sort of version indicator, but it looks like from the TRM that the version > is probable (CR_HASH_CORE_REV). If we expect probing for the revision > number to be sufficient, then perhaps "rev1" can be dropped? Also, the > second "img" is redundant. Yes the core ID and versions are available, so I'll drop rev-1, and remove the second img. > > > +- reg : Offset and length of the register set for the module, and the > > +DMA port > > +- interrupts : The designated IRQ line for the hashing module. > > +- dmas : DMA specifier as per > > +Documentation/devicetree/bindings/dma/dma.txt > > +- dma-names : Should be "tx" > > +- bus-addr : The bus address for the input data for hashing block > > I think this can be dropped. This is the same as the second "reg" > entry above, is it not? Yes, that should not have made it through to the patch - it will be removed. Thanks, James. ��.n��������+%������w��{.n�����{���{ay� ʇڙ���f���h������_�(�階�ݢj"��������G����?���&��
