RE: [PATCH v2 1/5] dt-bindings: crypto: Add Tegra Security Engine

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



> 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




[Index of Archives]     [Kernel]     [Gnu Classpath]     [Gnu Crypto]     [DM Crypt]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]
  Powered by Linux