On 02/02/2023 15:15, Vladimir Zapolskiy wrote:
> Hi Krzysztof,
>
> On 2/2/23 16:01, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 02/02/2023 14:50, Vladimir Zapolskiy wrote:
>>> From: Bhupesh Sharma <bhupesh.sharma@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>
>>> Since we decided to use soc specific compatibles for describing
>>> the qce crypto IP nodes in the device-trees, adapt the driver
>>> now to handle the same.
>>>
>>> Keep the old deprecated compatible strings still in the driver,
>>> to ensure backward compatibility.
>>>
>>> Cc: Bjorn Andersson <andersson@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>> Cc: Rob Herring <robh@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>> Cc: herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> Tested-by: Jordan Crouse <jorcrous@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>> Signed-off-by: Bhupesh Sharma <bhupesh.sharma@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>> [vladimir: added more SoC specfic compatibles]
>>> Signed-off-by: Vladimir Zapolskiy <vladimir.zapolskiy@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>> ---
>>> drivers/crypto/qce/core.c | 12 ++++++++++++
>>> 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/crypto/qce/core.c b/drivers/crypto/qce/core.c
>>> index 8e496fb2d5e2..2420a5ff44d1 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/crypto/qce/core.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/crypto/qce/core.c
>>> @@ -291,8 +291,20 @@ static int qce_crypto_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>> }
>>>
>>> static const struct of_device_id qce_crypto_of_match[] = {
>>> + /* Following two entries are deprecated (kept only for backward compatibility) */
>>> { .compatible = "qcom,crypto-v5.1", },
>>> { .compatible = "qcom,crypto-v5.4", },
>>> + /* Add compatible strings as per updated dt-bindings, here: */
>>> + { .compatible = "qcom,ipq4019-qce", },
>>> + { .compatible = "qcom,ipq6018-qce", },
>>> + { .compatible = "qcom,ipq8074-qce", },
>>> + { .compatible = "qcom,msm8996-qce", },
>>> + { .compatible = "qcom,sdm845-qce", },
>>> + { .compatible = "qcom,sm8150-qce", },
>>> + { .compatible = "qcom,sm8250-qce", },
>>> + { .compatible = "qcom,sm8350-qce", },
>>> + { .compatible = "qcom,sm8450-qce", },
>>> + { .compatible = "qcom,sm8550-qce", },
>> I did not agree with this at v7 and I still do not agree. We already did
>> some effort to clean this pattern in other drivers, so to make it clear
>> - driver does not need 10 compatibles because they are the same.
>
> Here is a misunderstanding, the compatibles are not the same and it shall
> not be assumed this way, only the current support of the IP on different SoCs
> in the driver is the same.
They are the same for the driver. It's the same what we fixed for SDHCI
and other cases. Why this should be treated differently?
>
> Later on every minor found difference among IPs will require to break DTB ABI,
> if all of the particular SoC specific comaptibles are not listed.
No, why? Why SDHCI and hundreds of other devices are not affected and
this one is?
Best regards,
Krzysztof
