Le Sat, Apr 02, 2022 at 02:07:26PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski a écrit : > On 02/04/2022 13:53, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > > 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? > > Actually let me re-think this. Is programming model (registers?) same > between crypto0 and crypto1? If yes, this should be same compatible and > add a dedicated property "rockchip,rsa"? > > I looked at your driver and you modeled it as main and sub devices. I > wonder why - are there some dependencies? It would be helpful to have > such information here in commit msg as well. Your commit #26 says that > only difference is the RSA. > Hello There is no dependency, my only problem is that only one of 2 instance need to register crypto algos. The only perfect way is to have a list_head of devices, but I found this a bit complex/overkill. I understand my current way is not ideal, I will probably try this other way. In that case, yes problably the 2 node need to have the same compatible (and only a future rockchip,rsa will permit to distinct where RSA is). Regards
