On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 03:47:21PM +0000, Pascal Van Leeuwen wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 09:41:09AM +0200, Pascal van Leeuwen wrote:
> > > static int safexcel_register_algorithms(struct safexcel_crypto_priv *priv)
> > > diff --git a/drivers/crypto/inside-secure/safexcel.h b/drivers/crypto/inside-
> > secure/safexcel.h
> > > index 282d59e..fc2aba2 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/crypto/inside-secure/safexcel.h
> > > +++ b/drivers/crypto/inside-secure/safexcel.h
> > > @@ -374,6 +374,7 @@ struct safexcel_context_record {
> > > #define CONTEXT_CONTROL_CRYPTO_ALG_XCBC192 (0x2 << 23)
> > > #define CONTEXT_CONTROL_CRYPTO_ALG_XCBC256 (0x3 << 23)
> > > #define CONTEXT_CONTROL_CRYPTO_ALG_POLY1305 (0xf << 23)
> > > +#define CONTEXT_CONTROL_CRYPTO_ALG_SM3 (0x7 << 23)
> >
> > Please order the definitions (0x7 before 0xf).
> >
> While I generally agree with you that having them in order is
> nicer, the other already existing algorithms weren't in order
> either (i.e. SHA224 is 4 but comes before SHA256 which is 3,
> same for SHA384 and SHA512), hence I just appended at the
> end of the list in the order I actually added them.
>
> Do you want me to put them *all* in order? Because otherwise
> it doesn't make sense to make an exception for SM3.
Yes, that's a good point. I don't have a preference in this specific
case, so I'd say the better is to keep what was done before.
Thanks!
Antoine
--
Antoine Ténart, Bootlin
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com
