On Tuesday, 30 July 2024 01:18:37 CEST Daniel Golle wrote: > On Wed, Jul 24, 2024 at 08:07:51AM +0200, Dragan Simic wrote: > > Thanks a lot for the testing. Though, such wildly different test results > > can, regrettably, lead to only one conclusion: the HWRNG found in RK3566 > > is unusable. :/ FTR: I agree with Dragan, unfortunately. > The results on RK3568 look much better and the series right now also > only enabled the RNG on RK3568 systems. However, we have only seen few > boards with RK3568 up to now, and I only got a couple of NanoPi R5C > here to test, all with good hwrng results. > > Do you think it would be agreeable to only enable the HWRNG for RK3568 > as suggested in this series? Or are we expecting quality to also vary > as much as it (sadly) does for RK3566? Unless we get *evidence* to the contrary, we should assume that the HWRNG on RK3568 is fine as the currently available test results are fine. So I think enabling it only for RK3568 is the right thing to do. So a 'revert' to v7 variant seems appropriate, but with the following changes: - Add `status = "disabled";` property to the definition in rk356x.dtsi - Add a new commit where you enable it only for rk3568 and document in the commit message why it's not enabled on rk3566 with a possible link to the v7 thread for clarification on why that is You could probably also integrate that into 1 commit, but make sure that the commit summary and description match the implementation. IMO that wasn't 'technically' the case in v8 as the rng node was added to rk356x, but it was only enabled on rk3568. My 0.02
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
