On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 03:27:28PM -0700, Mark A. Greer wrote: > On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 07:13:36PM +0000, Paul Walmsley wrote: > > Hi Mark, > > Hi Paul. Hi again, Paul. Sorry for the delay, I've been under the weather. > > I regret the delay, > > > > On Tue, 8 Jan 2013, Mark A. Greer wrote: > > > > > On Sun, Dec 23, 2012 at 08:40:43AM +0000, Paul Walmsley wrote: > > What do you think about adding an am35xx_es11plus_hwmod_ocp_ifs[] array to > > omap_hwmod_3xxx_data.c for these secure hwmods? That carries the implicit > > and possibly wrong assumption that it's likely to be ES1.0 devices that > > are missing the SHAM/AES, but it seems unlikely that TI would have > > multiple silicon revs running around claiming to be ES1.1? Or maybe I'm > > just being naïve. > > Something like that makes sense to me. I'll re-read my email, etc. and > see if I can find something to help us figure it out. I couldn't find any information that helped with this so AFAIK there is no good way to tell if a particular am35xx has the crypto hardware available or not. At this point, I vote for moving 'omap3xxx_l4_core__sham' and 'omap3xxx_l4_core__aes' from omap3xxx_gp_hwmod_ocp_ifs[] and putting them in omap34xx_hwmod_ocp_ifs[] and omap36xx_hwmod_ocp_ifs[]. That should be safe in general and if someone with an am35xx wants to use those modules, they can edit am35xx_hwmod_ocp_ifs[] locally. What do you think? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
