On Mon, Oct 21, 2024 at 04:56:38PM +0200, Christian Marangi wrote: > Add bindings for the Inside Secure SafeXcel EIP-93 crypto engine. > > The IP is present on Airoha SoC and on various Mediatek devices and > other SoC under different names like mtk-eip93 or PKTE. > > Signed-off-by: Christian Marangi <ansuelsmth@xxxxxxxxx> > --- > Changes v3: > - Add SoC compatible with generic one > Changes v2: > - Change to better compatible > - Add description for EIP93 models > > .../crypto/inside-secure,safexcel-eip93.yaml | 63 +++++++++++++++++++ > 1 file changed, 63 insertions(+) > create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/crypto/inside-secure,safexcel-eip93.yaml > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/crypto/inside-secure,safexcel-eip93.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/crypto/inside-secure,safexcel-eip93.yaml > new file mode 100644 > index 000000000000..13341710ee31 > --- /dev/null > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/crypto/inside-secure,safexcel-eip93.yaml > @@ -0,0 +1,63 @@ > +# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause) > +%YAML 1.2 > +--- > +$id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/crypto/inside-secure,safexcel-eip93.yaml# > +$schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml# > + > +title: Inside Secure SafeXcel EIP-93 cryptographic engine > + > +maintainers: > + - Christian Marangi <ansuelsmth@xxxxxxxxx> > + > +description: | > + The Inside Secure SafeXcel EIP-93 is a cryptographic engine IP block > + integrated in varios devices with very different and generic name from > + PKTE to simply vendor+EIP93. The real IP under the hood is actually > + developed by Inside Secure and given to license to vendors. > + > + The IP block is sold with different model based on what feature are > + needed and are identified with the final letter. Each letter correspond > + to a specific set of feature and multiple letter reflect the sum of the > + feature set. > + > + EIP-93 models: > + - EIP-93i: (basic) DES/Triple DES, AES, PRNG, IPsec ESP, SRTP, SHA1 > + - EIP-93ie: i + SHA224/256, AES-192/256 > + - EIP-93is: i + SSL/DTLS/DTLS, MD5, ARC4 > + - EIP-93ies: i + e + s > + - EIP-93iw: i + AES-XCB-MAC, AES-CCM This implies that you should have a non-trivial set of fallbacks, with the "i" model as the base for that. eg: "ie", "i" "is", "i" "iw", "i" "ies", "ie, "is", "i" (I dunno which would be a better order here) > + > +properties: > + compatible: > + items: > + - const: airoha,crypto-eip93 > + - enum: > + - inside-secure,safexcel-eip93i > + - inside-secure,safexcel-eip93ie > + - inside-secure,safexcel-eip93is > + - inside-secure,safexcel-eip93ies > + - inside-secure,safexcel-eip93iw I don't really get what's going on here. Why is the first compatible the generic one? That seems suspect to me, as I doubt the crypto block on a particular SoC varies? I'd expect to see some soc-specific compatibles with a fallback to the inside-secure IP version that it integrates. Cheers, Conor. > + > + reg: > + maxItems: 1 > + > + interrupts: > + maxItems: 1 > + > +required: > + - compatible > + - reg > + - interrupts > + > +additionalProperties: false > + > +examples: > + - | > + #include <dt-bindings/interrupt-controller/arm-gic.h> > + > + crypto@1e004000 { > + compatible = "airoha,crypto-eip93", "inside-secure,safexcel-eip93ies"; > + reg = <0x1fb70000 0x1000>; > + > + interrupts = <GIC_SPI 44 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>; > + }; > -- > 2.45.2 >
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
