From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from de01egw02.freescale.net (de01egw02.freescale.net [192.88.165.103]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "de01egw02.freescale.net", Issuer "Thawte Premium Server CA" (verified OK)) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9603EDE302 for ; Tue, 1 Jul 2008 02:04:19 +1000 (EST) Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 11:04:10 -0500 From: Kim Phillips To: Segher Boessenkool Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] update crypto node definition and device tree instances Message-Id: <20080630110410.7ee097ed.kim.phillips@freescale.com> In-Reply-To: <2b97f7566925ed86b78b364ff5724644@kernel.crashing.org> References: <20080627115243.d76e0814.kim.phillips@freescale.com> <2b97f7566925ed86b78b364ff5724644@kernel.crashing.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Cc: linuxppc-dev List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 01:37:12 +0200 Segher Boessenkool wrote: > > I'm really don't like "fsl,sec1.0" or any of the variants as a > > compatible property either because it can easily be abused (it's not > > anchored to a specific physical part so the meaning can shift over > > time); but that is another argument and it is well documented in other > > email threads > > (http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.ports.ppc64.devel/38977/ > > focus=39147) > > Also, these made-up names make you do more work: you'll need to who said they were made up? > write up a binding for them, explaining exactly what a 1.0 device > etc. is (or at least point to documentation for it). If you use > a name that refers to some device that people can easily google > for documentation, you can skip this (well, you might need to > write a binding anyway; but at least you won't have to explain > what the device _is_). documentation is available in the usual places, and it specifically points out which SEC version it references. Plus, as I mentioned before, a lot of the differences between the SEC versions are miniscule feature bits scattered across the programming model. > Using actual model names also reduces the namespace pollution > (hopefully Freescale will not create some other MPC8272 device > ever, so "fsl,mpc8272-whatever" will never be a nice name to > use for any other device; OTOH, it's likely that Freescale will > create some other device called "SEC" (there are only so many > TLAs, after all), so "fsl,sec-n.m" isn't as future-proof. I doubt that; the SEC has been around for about a decade now and that hasn't happened. The SEC is on par with the TSEC ethernet controller as far as this goes. Kim