From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from de01egw01.freescale.net (de01egw01.freescale.net [192.88.165.102]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 95AF0DE66C for ; Tue, 1 Jul 2008 04:14:55 +1000 (EST) Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 13:14:41 -0500 From: Kim Phillips To: Segher Boessenkool Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] update crypto node definition and device tree instances Message-Id: <20080630131441.e9b9ac1c.kim.phillips@freescale.com> In-Reply-To: References: <20080627115243.d76e0814.kim.phillips@freescale.com> <2b97f7566925ed86b78b364ff5724644@kernel.crashing.org> <20080630110410.7ee097ed.kim.phillips@freescale.com> 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 Mon, 30 Jun 2008 18:55:34 +0200 Segher Boessenkool wrote: > >> Also, these made-up names make you do more work: you'll need to > > > > who said they were made up? > > I did. These names do not refer to some physical part you can buy. right, they refer to devices in multiple physical parts you can buy. Part-you-can-buy documentation clearly indicates the SEC version in that part, in the form "SEC X.Y", i.e, it's not something made up that's not already in freescale documentation. > >> 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. > > I can't find a manual online for "freescale sec"; googling > for "freescale sec-1.0" finds a manual for the PowerQUICC I; > is that the right one? I don't know, so the binding needs > to explain it to me. the binding shouldn't be responsible for google's shortcomings (that hit is correct, btw). > Going from SoC name -> SEC version is easy, but the other way around > not so. > > Anyway, minor stuff. sounds like you're pointing out a lack of "SEC versions guide" documentation of Freescale.. > > Plus, as I mentioned > > before, a lot of the differences between the SEC versions are miniscule > > feature bits scattered across the programming model. > > I don't see how this is relevant, sorry. > I'm under the impression that listing the differences (assuming they're easily obtainable) would lead to unnecessary b-w-of bloat. > >> 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. > > You'll have to admit a three-letter acronym is a bigger namespace > squatter than a nice long name is. But it's your namespace, I don't > care. > > i tried googling for "freescale sec" to find any other devices called > SEC, but that didn't work out. What is "insider trading"? ;-) I don't know what google does; I'd search freescale documentation directly. Kim