From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: jgunthorpe@obsidianresearch.com (Jason Gunthorpe) Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2013 13:20:50 -0600 Subject: [PATCH 2/3] ARM: kirkwood: Move the crypto node under the mbus node In-Reply-To: <5238A609.30302@gmail.com> References: <20130917184309.GE21230@obsidianresearch.com> <5238A609.30302@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20130917192050.GA4067@obsidianresearch.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 08:57:13PM +0200, Sebastian Hesselbarth wrote: > On 09/17/2013 08:43 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > >There should be no nodes that are not children of the mbus. Move > >the crypto node under the mbus. > > > >Signed-off-by: Jason Gunthorpe > > arch/arm/boot/dts/kirkwood.dtsi | 23 +++++++++++------------ > > 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) > > I'd prefer not to move crypto out of internal regs. It is IP located > in internal registers. Well, that isn't entirely right. Internal registers isn't an IP block, it is yet another internal bus. MBUS is bridged to the (presumably low speed) internal registers bus, and then the internal registers bus is routed to IP block. There is a page in the manual that describes each of the IP blocks hanging off the internal registers bus. The crypto IP block has connections to two busses. One to MBUS and one to internal-regs bus. The sram is dual ported (mbus and IP both access it), it is an integral part of the crypto IP. So, I think the current binding is fine, and this change makes it very clear that it is a single IP block with connections to two of the internal busses. Certainly is is cleaner than contaminating the internal bus node's decode ranges with addresses that are not decoded by the MBUS to internal bus bridge. Anyhow, I don't want to churn the DT binding for crypto, we are supposed to be trying to keep these things stable and there is no functional change or bug fix in splitting the node into two. Jason