From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from va3outboundpool.messaging.microsoft.com (va3ehsobe005.messaging.microsoft.com [216.32.180.31]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "mail.global.frontbridge.com", Issuer "MSIT Machine Auth CA 2" (not verified)) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1E2B12C00BA for ; Wed, 24 Jul 2013 09:24:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail180-va3 (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail180-va3-R.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 138F52E00C6 for ; Tue, 23 Jul 2013 23:24:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: from VA3EHSMHS024.bigfish.com (unknown [10.7.14.245]) by mail180-va3.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B40120045 for ; Tue, 23 Jul 2013 23:24:21 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2013 18:24:14 -0500 From: Scott Wood Subject: Re: [1/4] powerpc/85xx: Add SEC6.0 device tree To: Liu Po-B43644 References: <1366854857-22791-1-git-send-email-Po.Liu@freescale.com> <20130722224110.GA26221@home.buserror.net> In-Reply-To: (from B43644@freescale.com on Tue Jul 23 03:01:17 2013) Message-ID: <1374621854.15592.44@snotra> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; delsp=Yes; format=Flowed Cc: Wood Scott-B07421 , Hu Mingkai-B21284 , "linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org" List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On 07/23/2013 03:01:17 AM, Liu Po-B43644 wrote: >=20 > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Wood Scott-B07421 > > Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2013 6:41 AM > > To: Liu Po-B43644 > > Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org; Hu Mingkai-B21284 > > Subject: Re: [1/4] powerpc/85xx: Add SEC6.0 device tree > > > > On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 09:54:14AM +0800, Po Liu wrote: > > > From: Mingkai Hu > > > > > > Add device tree for SEC 6.0 used on C29x silicon. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Mingkai Hu > > > Singed-off-by: Po Liu > > > > I've heard of patches being flamed, but here we want signing, not > > singeing. :-) > > > > Don't forget that you can use the -s option to have git add the =20 > signoff > > for you. > > > > > --- > > > Base on git://git.am.freescale.net/gitolite/mirrors/linux-2.6.git > > > > This URL is not accessible outside Freescale, so don't reference =20 > it when > > posting patches publicly. > > > > If your patch is against the latest upstream code, you don't need =20 > to say > > anything special about that. You only need to make a note when =20 > it's > > against some other yet-to-be-merged tree or patch. > > > > > + compatible =3D "fsl,sec-v6.0", "fsl,sec-v5.2", > > > + "fsl,sec-v5.0", "fsl,sec-v4.4", > > > + "fsl,sec-v4.0"; > > > + fsl,sec-era =3D <6>; > > > + #address-cells =3D <1>; > > > + #size-cells =3D <1>; > > > + > > > + jr@1000 { > > > + compatible =3D "fsl,sec-v6.0-job-ring", > > > + "fsl,sec-v5.2-job-ring", > > > + "fsl,sec-v5.0-job-ring", > > > + "fsl,sec-v4.4-job-ring", > > > + "fsl,sec-v4.0-job-ring"; > > > + reg =3D <0x1000 0x1000>; > > > + }; > > > + > > > + jr@2000 { > > > + compatible =3D "fsl,sec-v6.0-job-ring", > > > + "fsl,sec-v5.2-job-ring", > > > + "fsl,sec-v5.0-job-ring", > > > + "fsl,sec-v4.4-job-ring", > > > + "fsl,sec-v4.0-job-ring"; > > > + reg =3D <0x2000 0x1000>; > > > + }; > > > > You claim compatibility with a bunch of prior SECs, but sec-v5.2 =20 > has four > > job rings and an rtic node. Likewise for the previous compatibles =20 > listed. > > This has two job rings and no rtic. > So, shall I remove "fsl,sec-v5.2","fsl,sec-v5.0", "fsl,sec-v4.4", =20 > "fsl,sec-v4.0" since all other SEC with 4 job rings? and only leave =20 > "fsl,sec-v6.0"? Yes, I think so. > > Can you point to where in the SEC v4.0 binding (I don't see a =20 > binding for > > the subsequent versions), it says that these are optional? > I found SEC V4.0 in file qoriq-sec4.0-0.dtsi. If "fsl,sec-v4.0" not =20 > in the compatible list, it is no use in this compatible list. But =20 > seems keep the "fsl,sec-v4.0-job-ring" job ring compatible is ok. Is =20 > that what you were ask? No, I was talking about binding documents: Documentation/devicetree/bindings/crypto/ -Scott=