On 08/02/2022 05:04, Tudor.Ambarus@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > Hi, Krzysztof, > > On 2/7/22 18:04, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >> EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe >> >> On 07/02/2022 04:24, Tudor Ambarus wrote: >>> Convert Atmel TDES documentation to yaml format. With the conversion the >>> clock and clock-names properties are made mandatory. The driver returns >>> -EINVAL if "tdes_clk" is not found, reflect that in the bindings and make >>> the clock and clock-names properties mandatory. Update the example to >>> better describe how one should define the dt node. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Tudor Ambarus <tudor.ambarus@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>> --- >>> .../bindings/crypto/atmel,tdes.yaml | 63 +++++++++++++++++++ >>> .../bindings/crypto/atmel-crypto.txt | 23 ------- >>> 2 files changed, 63 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-) >>> create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/crypto/atmel,tdes.yaml >>> >>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/crypto/atmel,tdes.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/crypto/atmel,tdes.yaml >>> new file mode 100644 >>> index 000000000000..7efa5e4acaa1 >>> --- /dev/null >>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/crypto/atmel,tdes.yaml >>> @@ -0,0 +1,63 @@ >>> +# SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only >>> +%YAML 1.2 >>> +--- >>> +$id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/crypto/atmel,tdes.yaml# >>> +$schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml# >>> + >>> +title: Atmel Triple Data Encryption Standard (TDES) HW cryptographic accelerator >>> + >>> +maintainers: >>> + - Tudor Ambarus <tudor.ambarus@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>> + >>> +properties: >>> + compatible: >>> + const: atmel,at91sam9g46-tdes >>> + >> >> Same comments as for patch 1 plus one new (also applying to previous >> one). You named the file quite generic "atmel,tdes" or "atmel,aes", but >> what if something newer comes for at91? Maybe name it instead >> "atmel,at91sam9-aes"? >> > > For historical reasons, the atmel-{aes,tdes,sha} drivers use their own > fixed compatible. The differentiation between the versions of the same IP > and their capabilities is done at run-time, by interrogating a version > register. Thus I expect that no new compatible will be added for neither of > these IPs. I was not talking about compatibles. I was talking about file name. You called it "atmel,tdes" which is quite generic. If Microchip (not Atmel...) comes with a new type of AES/TDES/SHA block for new line of architectures, how are you going to name the bindings? Best regards, Krzysztof
