Le Sat, Apr 02, 2022 at 01:53:58PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski a écrit : > On 01/04/2022 22:17, Corentin Labbe wrote: > > The latest addition to the rockchip crypto driver need to update the > > driver bindings. > > > > Signed-off-by: Corentin Labbe <clabbe@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > .../crypto/rockchip,rk3288-crypto.yaml | 68 +++++++++++++++++-- > > 1 file changed, 63 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/crypto/rockchip,rk3288-crypto.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/crypto/rockchip,rk3288-crypto.yaml > > index 66db671118c3..e6c00bc8bebf 100644 > > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/crypto/rockchip,rk3288-crypto.yaml > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/crypto/rockchip,rk3288-crypto.yaml > > @@ -11,8 +11,18 @@ maintainers: > > > > properties: > > compatible: > > - enum: > > - - rockchip,rk3288-crypto > > + oneOf: > > + - description: crypto IP present on RK3288 SoCs > > + items: > > + - const: rockchip,rk3288-crypto > > + - description: crypto IP present on RK3328 SoCs > > These two comments are not helping, so this should be just enum. > > > + items: > > + - const: rockchip,rk3328-crypto > > + - description: crypto IPs present on RK3399. crypto0 is the first IP with > > + RSA support, crypto1 is the second IP without RSA. > > The second part of this comment is helpful, first not. You have chosen > enum in your first patch, so just extend it with comments. Additionally > indexing does not scale. What if next generation reverses it and crypto0 > does not have RSA and crypto1 has? > > Something like: > > properties: > compatible: > enum: > - rockchip,rk3288-crypto > - rockchip,rk3328-crypto > # With RSA > - rockchip,rk3399-crypto-rsa > # Without RSA > - rockchip,rk3399-crypto-norsa > Hello There will never be new SoCs with this crypto, rockchip seems to have dropped this IP for a different crypto v2 on their new SoCs. I will answer more on that on your second mail. > > + enum: > > + - rockchip,rk3399-crypto0 > > + - rockchip,rk3399-crypto1 > > > > reg: > > maxItems: 1 > > @@ -21,16 +31,65 @@ properties: > > maxItems: 1 > > > > clocks: > > + minItems: 3 > > maxItems: 4 > > > > clock-names: > > + minItems: 3 > > maxItems: 4 > > > > resets: > > - maxItems: 1 > > + minItems: 1 > > + maxItems: 3 > > > > reset-names: > > - maxItems: 1 > > + deprecated: true > > Why reset-names are being deprecated? Did we talk about this? > Since I use the devm_reset_control_array_get_exclusive, there is no need to have reset-names. > > + > > +allOf: > > + - if: > > + properties: > > + compatible: > > + contains: > > + const: rockchip,rk3288-crypto > > + then: > > + properties: > > + clock-names: > > + items: > > + - const: "aclk" > > + - const: "hclk" > > + - const: "sclk" > > + - const: "apb_pclk" > > + minItems: 4 > > minItems for clocks > max for resets and reset-names > > > + - if: > > + properties: > > + compatible: > > + contains: > > + const: rockchip,rk3328-crypto > > + then: > > + properties: > > + clock-names: > > + items: > > + - const: "hclk_master" > > + - const: "hclk_slave" > > + - const: "sclk" > > + maxItems: 3 > > min/max for clocks > max for resets and reset-names > > > + - if: > > + properties: > > + compatible: > > + contains: > > + enum: > > + - rockchip,rk3399-crypto0 > > + - rockchip,rk3399-crypto1 > > + then: > > + properties: > > + clock-names: > > + items: > > + - const: "hclk_master" > > + - const: "hclk_slave" > > + - const: "sclk" > > + maxItems: 3 > > + resets: > > + minItems: 3 > > Similarly. > I will fix that in v5 Thanks.
