Re: [PATCH 2/5] arm64: dts: qcom: sm6115: Add Crypto Engine support

[Bhupesh Sharma <bhupesh.sharma@linaro.org>]

On Wed, 22 Mar 2023 at 02:09, Stephan Gerhold <stephan@gerhold.net> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 22, 2023 at 12:31:15AM +0530, Bhupesh Sharma wrote:
> > Add crypto engine (CE) and CE BAM related nodes and definitions to
> > 'sm6115.dtsi'.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Bhupesh Sharma <bhupesh.sharma@linaro.org>
> > ---
> >  arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm6115.dtsi | 26 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >  1 file changed, 26 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm6115.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm6115.dtsi
> > index c56738633431..b2d2cdde41fa 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm6115.dtsi
> > +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm6115.dtsi
> > @@ -664,6 +664,32 @@ usb_1_hsphy: phy@1613000 {
> >                       status = "disabled";
> >               };
> >
> > +             cryptobam: dma-controller@1b04000 {
> > +                     compatible = "qcom,bam-v1.7.4", "qcom,bam-v1.7.0";
> > +                     reg = <0x0 0x01b04000 0x0 0x24000>;
> > +                     interrupts = <GIC_SPI 247 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>;
> > +                     #dma-cells = <1>;
> > +                     qcom,ee = <0>;
> > +                     qcom,controlled-remotely;
> > +                     num-channels = <8>;
> > +                     qcom,num-ees = <2>;
> > +                     iommus = <&apps_smmu 0x84 0x11>,
> > +                              <&apps_smmu 0x86 0x11>,
> > +                              <&apps_smmu 0x94 0x11>,
> > +                              <&apps_smmu 0x96 0x11>;
> > +             };
> > +
> > +             crypto: crypto@1b3a000 {
> > +                     compatible = "qcom,sm6115-qce", "qcom,sm8150-qce", "qcom,qce";
> > +                     reg = <0x0 0x01b3a000 0x0 0x6000>;
> > +                     dmas = <&cryptobam 6>, <&cryptobam 7>;
> > +                     dma-names = "rx", "tx";
> > +                     iommus = <&apps_smmu 0x84 0x11>,
> > +                              <&apps_smmu 0x86 0x11>,
> > +                              <&apps_smmu 0x94 0x11>,
> > +                              <&apps_smmu 0x96 0x11>;
>
> If you apply the 0x11 mask to the stream ID then the last two items here
> are identical to the first two (0x94 & ~0x11 = 0x84). Why are they
> needed? They look redundant to me.

Thanks, I will check them out and fix them in v2.

Regards.