From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D6D8BC32771 for ; Wed, 21 Sep 2022 06:52:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S230214AbiIUGwg (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 Sep 2022 02:52:36 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:57352 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S230271AbiIUGwN (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 Sep 2022 02:52:13 -0400 Received: from mail-pj1-x102e.google.com (mail-pj1-x102e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::102e]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DD42880F75 for ; Tue, 20 Sep 2022 23:52:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pj1-x102e.google.com with SMTP id q3so5452625pjg.3 for ; Tue, 20 Sep 2022 23:52:11 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linaro.org; s=google; h=content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:from:references:cc:to :content-language:subject:user-agent:mime-version:date:message-id :from:to:cc:subject:date; bh=ZHM4glH/lLw2QOmsfReWSEKEYl56FKNM69zB9VOK1rU=; b=tY2hfE4z9cjAj7K3+No2dsJRHekRr+JRTUJBWX9CNe1oI1llIeIM8yOgIkA7B5QsEl +ILN5d7eOyD0n7k/fatsSdzFxhO+egnECvFe9ToWSNJ/H3mFPR7CbqYjSHGUhaIIvimE /YtLrDmP+5+iha0gAGulvq+PYQM/nSltWsAp2B5wVQ2b4LOTPSYTkBTtZ9yWH9t9vQ5L kwpL6Q+2/KUdA8pOIMmuCEh5HMkx3fk3fCs5LhL7QGvd1mBZuNQmwwcJBzRMifjBblkS jKemUx05YzSgmruN7aYzZn/ytdLGM9fVBlKoaNi9HtghkiKDB8dMrbdLKJdan67PRwNN LcQQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:from:references:cc:to :content-language:subject:user-agent:mime-version:date:message-id :x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date; bh=ZHM4glH/lLw2QOmsfReWSEKEYl56FKNM69zB9VOK1rU=; b=4aouNl5P+3/D3aoHf4KLvIcSMg7j4EFl2xy+e0KFxcEFAHv1+AiJyzodaw3WaSBegk 02AyKnW1ZyMetbMB62NUjg5yRGaxH42ht5d/V2m9dhCq2/+FPjje+8lGMx+opjg8Y4RU g52ZHNG6NR0YdiNXKZ0TGse8wGaaWrXHIsPPCqD1HNFYCiha7IJf14/lOE1t4iAvlH6k UpWQW4wbIfxkKOznupo/9y2i1IWXhJlDbPxAdMQlOt0dIcsptzpCQO64XirG5IwZyq55 DXLZJiJhxECHIy1YBh55+dvboZXTS1U2zBAO4PJQpYbL0HA8y/gEMMsXE4+1Bd2wtgnp GV/w== X-Gm-Message-State: ACrzQf0+g/DS4OsyXbnHepX3KmCPsfij1ZBC8/PGCkLOcOs5ZNU03eNz ryI22HNM72xb0qwIRlVWoPOXHw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AMsMyM7xAOLC+XQo96Ct3mZkMVxCdnxUdM0LcQO6uekjtAf2NwpxQvbTE/ou+6FzPD0SKXFoHM5tDQ== X-Received: by 2002:a17:90b:3b43:b0:202:d053:d305 with SMTP id ot3-20020a17090b3b4300b00202d053d305mr7971031pjb.229.1663743130454; Tue, 20 Sep 2022 23:52:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?IPV6:2401:4900:1c61:8e50:8ba8:7ad7:f34c:2f5? ([2401:4900:1c61:8e50:8ba8:7ad7:f34c:2f5]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id z11-20020a170903018b00b0016bf5557690sm1121028plg.4.2022.09.20.23.52.05 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 20 Sep 2022 23:52:09 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <94ff2006-0051-19be-5eee-a5f71a07e26b@linaro.org> Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2022 12:22:03 +0530 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.12.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 6/9] crypto: qce: core: Add new compatibles for qce crypto driver Content-Language: en-US To: Krzysztof Kozlowski , linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org Cc: agross@kernel.org, herbert@gondor.apana.org.au, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, robh+dt@kernel.org, linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, thara.gopinath@gmail.com, robh@kernel.org, andersson@kernel.org, bhupesh.linux@gmail.com, davem@davemloft.net, Jordan Crouse References: <20220920114051.1116441-1-bhupesh.sharma@linaro.org> <20220920114051.1116441-7-bhupesh.sharma@linaro.org> <9b111583-519b-95a6-15b5-243e88dc8d39@linaro.org> <37b509ff-4fc2-73f1-b135-c0930075ec29@linaro.org> From: Bhupesh Sharma In-Reply-To: <37b509ff-4fc2-73f1-b135-c0930075ec29@linaro.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On 9/21/22 11:57 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On 21/09/2022 08:16, Bhupesh Sharma wrote: >> >> >> On 9/20/22 8:42 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>> On 20/09/2022 13:40, Bhupesh Sharma wrote: >>>> Since we decided to use soc specific compatibles for describing >>>> the qce crypto IP nodes in the device-trees, adapt the driver >>>> now to handle the same. >>>> >>>> Keep the old deprecated compatible strings still in the driver, >>>> to ensure backward compatibility. >>>> >>>> Cc: Bjorn Andersson >>>> Cc: Rob Herring >>>> Cc: herbert@gondor.apana.org.au >>>> Tested-by: Jordan Crouse >>>> Signed-off-by: Bhupesh Sharma >>>> --- >>>> drivers/crypto/qce/core.c | 9 +++++++++ >>>> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/drivers/crypto/qce/core.c b/drivers/crypto/qce/core.c >>>> index 63be06df5519..99ed540611ab 100644 >>>> --- a/drivers/crypto/qce/core.c >>>> +++ b/drivers/crypto/qce/core.c >>>> @@ -291,8 +291,17 @@ static int qce_crypto_remove(struct platform_device *pdev) >>>> } >>>> >>>> static const struct of_device_id qce_crypto_of_match[] = { >>>> + /* Following two entries are deprecated (kept only for backward compatibility) */ >>>> { .compatible = "qcom,crypto-v5.1", }, >>>> { .compatible = "qcom,crypto-v5.4", }, >>> >>> This is okay, so there is no ABI break. >> >> Great. Thanks for the confirmation. >> >>>> + /* Add compatible strings as per updated dt-bindings, here: */ >>>> + { .compatible = "qcom,ipq4019-qce", }, >>>> + { .compatible = "qcom,ipq6018-qce", }, >>>> + { .compatible = "qcom,ipq8074-qce", }, >>>> + { .compatible = "qcom,msm8996-qce", }, >>>> + { .compatible = "qcom,sdm845-qce", }, >>>> + { .compatible = "qcom,sm8150-qce", }, >>>> + { .compatible = "qcom,sm8250-qce", }, >>> >>> This is a bit odd... you have 7 devices which are simply compatible or >>> even the same. This should be instead one compatible. >>> >>> I don't really get why do you want to deprecate "qcom,crypto-v5.1". >>> Commit msg only says "we decided" but I do not know who is "we" and "why >>> we decided like this". If you want to deprecate it, perfectly fine by >>> me, but please say in commit msg why you are doing it. >> >> I understand. This patchset has been in flight for some time and hence I >> might have missed sharing some detailed information about the review >> comments and rework done along the way (in the cover letter for this >> series). >> >> Coming back to your concern, here is the relevant background: >> - Please see: >> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-msm/20210316222825.GA3792517@robh.at.kernel.org/ >> >> - Rob shared some comments on the v1 series regarding the soc-specific >> compatibles. He mentioned in the above thread that 'you should stick >> with SoC specific compatibles as *everyone* else does (including most >> QCom bindings).' >> >> - So, while I had proposed "qcom,crypto-v5.1" (for ipq6018) and >> "qcom,crypto-v5.4" (for sdm845, sm8150) etc. as the compatible(s) in the >> v1 series, I shifted to using the soc-specific compatibles from the v2 >> series, onwards. > > Then the reason could be - Reviewers preferred SoC-based compatible > instead of IP-block-version-based. > > What is confusing is the difference between that link and here. That > link wanted to introduce 4 different compatibles... and here you have > even 7 compatibles being the same. The link points to v1 version and we are on v7 currently. So there have been other comments and reworks along the way :) All of these have been referred to in the cover letter logs. Again please refer to Vladimir's comments on v5 version here, where he suggested adding soc compatibles for 'ipq8074' and 'msm8996' as well. - https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/7328ae17-1dc7-eaa1-5993-411b986e5e02@linaro.org/ - https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/f5b7c89c-3bdd-1e1e-772e-721aa5e95bbf@linaro.org/ - https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/7328ae17-1dc7-eaa1-5993-411b986e5e02@linaro.org/ Also the 7 SoC compatibles do not point to the same crypto IP version. We have two IP versions currently supported upstream, "qcom,crypto-v5.1" and "qcom,crypto-v5.4" (with patches for support for newer versions under work and can be expected to land upstream in near future). However, if you suggest, we can add some comments in the dt-binding doc to reflect which SoC supports which version. >> - Basically, since we are going to have newer qce IP versions available >> in near future, e.g. "qcom,crypto-v5.5" etc, and we will have 2 or more >> SoCs also sharing 1 version, these compatibles would grow and become >> more confusing. IMO, having a soc-specific compatible in such cases is >> probably a much cleaner approach. >> >> Hope this helps answer some of your concerns and provides some relevant >> background information. > > Sure, but I still think you should have only one compatible in the > driver in such case. You don't have differences between them from the > driver point of view, so the devices seem to be compatible. > > If not, what are the differences? There can always be requirements for compatible specific handling done in the driver. See Bjorn's comment here for example: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/YZKhqJuFlRVeQkCc@builder.lan/ , as an example of 'clk_get' calls conditional based on the compatible instead. This series is to get some early comments and might need some further rework / rearrangement. However, I would request Rob to share his views as well on the soc specific compatibles, since it was originally his suggestion. I can rework the patchset accordingly. Thanks, Bhupesh