Hi Gilad,
On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 10:31 AM, Gilad Ben-Yossef <gilad@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 8:53 PM, Geert Uytterhoeven
> <geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 3:22 PM, Gilad Ben-Yossef <gilad@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 3:13 PM, Geert Uytterhoeven
>>> <geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 1:48 PM, Gilad Ben-Yossef <gilad@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>> Limit option to compile ccree to plausible architectures.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for your patch!
>>>>
>>>>> Suggested-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Gilad Ben-Yossef <gilad@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> drivers/crypto/Kconfig | 1 +
>>>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/crypto/Kconfig b/drivers/crypto/Kconfig
>>>>> index d1ea1a0..7302785 100644
>>>>> --- a/drivers/crypto/Kconfig
>>>>> +++ b/drivers/crypto/Kconfig
>>>>> @@ -726,6 +726,7 @@ config CRYPTO_DEV_ARTPEC6
>>>>> config CRYPTO_DEV_CCREE
>>>>> tristate "Support for ARM TrustZone CryptoCell family of security processors"
>>>>> depends on CRYPTO && CRYPTO_HW && OF && HAS_DMA
>>>>> + depends on (XTENSA || X86 || UNICORE32 || SUPERH || RISCV || PPC32 || OPENRISC || NIOS2 || NDS32 || MIPS || MICROBLAZE || HEXAGON || H8300 || ARM || ARM64 || ARC || COMPILE_TEST)
>>>>
>>>> That list looks a bit excessive to me...
>>>
>>> I'm sorry, but as an Arm employee I'm not in liberty to identify which
>>> customer licensed or might license CryptoCell for which platform, now
>>> or in the future.
>>>
>>> I'm sure you understand.
>> What about using "depends on <list> || COMPILE_TEST", with <list> the
>> platforms for which the DTS (incl. "arm,cryptocell-*") will be submitted
>> for v4.18? The list can easily be extended when needed.
> Seriously though, I think I was not efficient in communicating my
> point through. Let me try again:
Perhaps I also wasn't clear. With "platform dependency", I meant not just
architectures (e.g. ARM64), but also platform families (e.g. ARCH_EXYNOS).
> The boards that came out last year (which I plan to send DT entries
> for) are using CryptoCell 630p, which we shipped as a design IP a few
> years ago. It takes years for an IP design to ship, be designed into
> SoCs, for these SoCs to ship and be designed into boards and until
> these ship... and when they do, they almost always don't use the
> cutting edge latest kernel.
OK, so the list can be extended when you send the DTS for that...
> That is to say - I don't know which SoC and using which architecture
> the CryptoCell IP was and will be designed into but I want the driver
> and the kernel to be ready when they do - this IS after all the whole
> point o doing stuff Upstream First(tm)!
... and IMHO an initial empty list is fine, as it will still be upstream, and
compile-tested by the bots.
(note: I do love Upstream First(tm)!)
> This is the same of having random PCI devices depend on PCI and not a
> specific architecture even if no one shipped a system with that device
> yet and again the same with I2C devices depending on I2C and not a
> specific architecture even if we don't have a board out with that I2C
> device designed it. It's a generic none architecture dependent
> component.
At least those depend on PCI or I2C, and thus won't show up on machines
without PCI or I2C.
> This is why I initially did not mark the device driver as depending on
> any specific architecture.
>
> In light of your request, and what I believe is the underlying idea to
> cut down as much as possible build time for test code, to which I
> agree, I've decided to cut out architecture that there is very little
> chance to even go into a SoC with CryptoCell, such as s390 or um.
My underlying idea is not to cut down build time for test code (that's what
we have COMPILE_TEST for), but to enhance usability for users and distros,
who need to know if it makes sense to enable an option.
> So, any pointer to an architecture that will not likely to go into a
> SoC in the coming years with some off the shelf HW IP so I can cut off
> more is very welcome, but using currently shipping boards to indicate
> which architecture to support is not appropriate.
>
> I hope this makes things a bit clearer.
IMHO the extensive list of possible architectures is not really an
improvement. So either a dependency on COMPILE_TEST, or no dependency
at all makes the most sense to me.
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
