From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from e34.co.us.ibm.com (e34.co.us.ibm.com [32.97.110.152]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "e34.co.us.ibm.com", Issuer "Equifax" (verified OK)) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5CE3AB6F5C for ; Tue, 28 Jun 2011 21:48:18 +1000 (EST) Received: from d03relay01.boulder.ibm.com (d03relay01.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.226]) by e34.co.us.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1) with ESMTP id p5SBZBq0008178 for ; Tue, 28 Jun 2011 05:35:11 -0600 Received: from d03av04.boulder.ibm.com (d03av04.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.170]) by d03relay01.boulder.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id p5SBm6pC196532 for ; Tue, 28 Jun 2011 05:48:06 -0600 Received: from d03av04.boulder.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d03av04.boulder.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id p5S5m4F3012833 for ; Mon, 27 Jun 2011 23:48:05 -0600 Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2011 07:48:10 -0400 From: Josh Boyer To: Segher Boessenkool Subject: Re: [PATCH] powerpc, 460gt: Add 460gt as compatible in the check for 460ex-compatible crypto Message-ID: <20110628114810.GA10237@zod.rchland.ibm.com> References: <1308771051-30861-1-git-send-email-mike@mikebwilliams.com> <14e6cd940efae1704f5908757f81f627@kernel.crashing.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 In-Reply-To: Cc: Mike Williams , linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 04:14:07AM +0200, Segher Boessenkool wrote: >>>>-       if (of_find_compatible_node(NULL, NULL, >>>>"amcc,ppc460ex-crypto")) { >>>>+       if (of_find_compatible_node(NULL, NULL, >>>>"amcc,ppc460ex-crypto") || >>>>+           of_find_compatible_node(NULL, NULL, >>>>"amcc,ppc460gt-crypto")) { >>> >>>If the device is actually compatible, the device tree node should >>>claim >>>it is, and you do not need this code change. >> >>That was actually my first instinct, however I tried to follow the >>current convention in the glacier and canyonlands DTS files, which is >>to set every device compatible to 460gt or 460ex, depending on the >>processor. Many of the devices are identical between the two, since >>they are variations of the same SoC, so which is the preferred method? >>Follow the device tree convention and add the compatibility check in >>the driver, > >That is not the convention. > >>or alter the device trees? I'll send another patch if it's >>the latter. > >You say > > compatible = "amcc,ppc460gt-crypto", "amcc,ppc460ex-crypto"; I went ahead and modified the addition of the node to the glacier DTS file to do this instead. I think this specific patch can be dropped. josh