> On 29/12/2023 08:11, Akhil R wrote: > >> On 28/12/2023 10:33, Akhil R wrote: > >>>>> +properties: > >>>>> + compatible: > >>>>> + const: nvidia,tegra234-se4-hash > >>>> > >>>> What is se4? > >>>> > >>>> Anyway, filename like compatible. > >>> Similar to the above, the hardware name is SE4. > >>> > >>> nvidia,tegra234-se-aes and nvidia,tegra234-se-hash does look good to > >>> me. But I am a bit concerned about the ABI breakage in case, we need a > >> different compatible for the remaining instance. > >> > >> Isn't this a new device? What ABI breakage? What would be affected? > > > > I meant a scenario where we need to support SE1 instance as well. > > > > There is one more SE instance in Tegra, which is very similar to SE2 AES Engine. > > But right now, it does not have a good use case in Linux. Now if we add > > nvidia,tegra234-se-aes and nvidia,tegra234-se-hash, when SE1 needs to be > > supported, I guess it would be confusing to find the right compatible for it. > > Hm, I still do not see possibility of breaking of ABI, but sure, se4 > makes sense if instances are really different. Otherwise could be one > compatible with some property. It kind of depends on the differences. > > Anyway, name the file based on the compatible. One compatible with some property looks to be a good approach to me. Instances aren't totally different. So, I will update the compatible to nvidia,tegra234-se-aes and nvidia,tegra234-se-hash in the next revision. Thanks for the comments and inputs. Regards, Akhil
