Am Mittwoch, 23. März 2022, 14:22:41 CET schrieb LABBE Corentin:
> Le Tue, Mar 22, 2022 at 12:00:06PM +0000, Robin Murphy a écrit :
> > On 2022-03-21 20:07, Corentin Labbe wrote:
> > > The rk3399 has a crypto IP handled by the rk3288 crypto driver so adds a
> > > node for it.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Corentin Labbe <clabbe@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > arch/arm64/boot/dts/rockchip/rk3399.dtsi | 12 ++++++++++++
> > > 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/rockchip/rk3399.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/rockchip/rk3399.dtsi
> > > index 88f26d89eea1..ca2c658371a5 100644
> > > --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/rockchip/rk3399.dtsi
> > > +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/rockchip/rk3399.dtsi
> > > @@ -573,6 +573,18 @@ saradc: saradc@ff100000 {
> > > status = "disabled";
> > > };
> > >
> > > + crypto0: crypto@ff8b0000 {
> > > + compatible = "rockchip,rk3399-crypto";
> > > + reg = <0x0 0xff8b0000 0x0 0x4000>,
> > > + <0x0 0xff8b8000 0x0 0x4000>;
> > > + interrupts = <GIC_SPI 0 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH 0>,
> > > + <GIC_SPI 135 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH 0>;
> > > + clocks = <&cru SCLK_CRYPTO0>, <&cru HCLK_M_CRYPTO0>, <&cru HCLK_S_CRYPTO0>,
> > > + <&cru SCLK_CRYPTO1>, <&cru HCLK_M_CRYPTO1>, <&cru HCLK_S_CRYPTO1>;
> > > + resets = <&cru SRST_CRYPTO0>, <&cru SRST_CRYPTO0_S>, <&cru SRST_CRYPTO0_M>,
> > > + <&cru SRST_CRYPTO1>, <&cru SRST_CRYPTO1_S>, <&cru SRST_CRYPTO1_M>;
> > > + };
> >
> > What's going on here? If these are simply two instances of the same IP
> > block as the evidence suggests, why are they crammed into a single DT
> > node rather than simply being described as two separate instances? I was
> > rather wondering what all the confusing mess in patch #16 was about,
> > until I got here.
> >
> > If there's something in the crypto API that means the driver can't
> > simply naively register itself multiple times, there should be any
> > number of ways for the probe routine to keep track of whether it's
> > already registered something and associate any subsequent devices with
> > the first one internally if need be. Linux implementation details should
> > not leak out as non-standard DT weirdness.
> >
> > I know the Rockchip IOMMU driver does this, but in that case the two
> > IOMMU instances are closely coupled and sharing work such that they
> > effectively need to be programmed identically at all times, so it was a
> > bit more justifiable. I don't know the full story here, but it certainly
> > looks like rk_get_engine_number() is just a means to schedule work on
> > any available unit independently, so looks like it wouldn't take much to
> > select between distinct devices at that point, and actually end up a lot
> > simpler and cleaner overall.
>
> Yes rk3399 has 2 instances of the same IP (Exception: crypto1 does not have RSA).
>
> The problem is that only one drivername (like rk-md5) could exists.
> If crypto0 and crypto1 register with different drivername (rk-md5-0/rk-md5-1), only one will be used anyway.
> So I merged them into only one instance.
> I think this way will be easier, but you are right, this is not pretty.
>
> I found another way with 2 nodes:
> You could preview it at https://github.com/montjoie/linux/tree/cryptorockchipv4
> Basicly the crypto0 is a normal instance, and crypto1 "registers" itself against crypto0.
> So if crypto0 know another instance exists it will load balance requests.
The DT-nodes in that branch are
@@ -573,6 +573,22 @@
status = "disabled";
};
+ crypto0: crypto@ff8b0000 {
+ compatible = "rockchip,rk3399-crypto0";
+ reg = <0x0 0xff8b0000 0x0 0x4000>;
+ interrupts = <GIC_SPI 0 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH 0>;
+ clocks = <&cru SCLK_CRYPTO0>, <&cru HCLK_M_CRYPTO0>, <&cru HCLK_S_CRYPTO0>;
+ resets = <&cru SRST_CRYPTO0>, <&cru SRST_CRYPTO0_S>, <&cru SRST_CRYPTO0_M>;
+ };
+
+ crypto1: crypto@ff8b8000 {
+ compatible = "rockchip,rk3399-crypto1";
+ reg = <0x0 0xff8b8000 0x0 0x4000>;
+ interrupts = <GIC_SPI 135 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH 0>;
+ clocks = <&cru SCLK_CRYPTO1>, <&cru HCLK_M_CRYPTO1>, <&cru HCLK_S_CRYPTO1>;
+ resets = <&cru SRST_CRYPTO1>, <&cru SRST_CRYPTO1_S>, <&cru SRST_CRYPTO1_M>;
+ };
+
i2c1: i2c@ff110000 {
compatible = "rockchip,rk3399-i2c";
reg = <0x0 0xff110000 0x0 0x1000>;
which looks at lot better :-) .
I'm not sure about the different compatibles yet, but as the blocks
are really _not_ the same implementation that actually does make sense
[i.e. one not having RSA]
Though I think you'll need to update the binding for them.
Heiko
