From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-wm1-f47.google.com (mail-wm1-f47.google.com [209.85.128.47]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E6D871DD87D; Thu, 17 Oct 2024 12:30:04 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.128.47 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1729168206; cv=none; b=OpomHb0o4jSEanHV054AkA26aQusKWjyuhpMeqyEmnY7At+RvN/o9wrdz1H+oDuG3NFRGn1ALIkVrowIuxybzwcTUalpWZd90dywK0E7PqS5aORxiG5wGhpDIPGJg55Erpq7rtiKsbhcV24qS3LG6XwOojfsr1vvUO+j897jNbs= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1729168206; c=relaxed/simple; bh=XgziAbReF3ro/I+pQGQQcCy5YVAQurh04oOvgfEMjEY=; h=Message-ID:Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=n4ViY9hAVzM30A4phdCIgtbK8kupt6oMliOo1bq+Xf8cESQ6N9HcFH8XjUoV//BuU6oWrcUhC4IZ2ETEKPg/3gU9zDSIOaG99Mx1oXv1eYBRBgfwAHWHrUb3D9lBNKtG/1J9mykA7xtOcqF90YbrMi2h4cP+HlbP8qTr1V76XjI= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b=mobCr2PK; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.128.47 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="mobCr2PK" Received: by mail-wm1-f47.google.com with SMTP id 5b1f17b1804b1-4315eeb2601so2022225e9.2; Thu, 17 Oct 2024 05:30:04 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1729168203; x=1729773003; darn=vger.kernel.org; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:subject:cc :to:from:date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=eau2jkUCayYgBs/JR1nIB5Drz991JgJug5wK7vgjtZ4=; b=mobCr2PK+92mbA9olp88fyjROIyUlyVSy/WIpJbP43cS9SoQNUmy6eSv7XAhxH9TKo N0KlBL4sSXs3jCZchZV6EejZ1Wy+knMndbVnSItQU2VnCANH6+mMzC5gj8CbRXEdjiBG BYHeP98S5s3bx0nuOKrMW+3miofG7w9EB2JTvaLu5eg0a2AwyQ8UfLUQU+G7CUWpca7t YqgZYyhSdaux7gtMoeJbfJYG6D0+bcxYLdvwdr7S6G4KpLdw1o5mKnybWXdeDug1kFyF 9swy5+jdxKxgwpzQvDgURKxKhmhPj7SKh/VFw+JIbryFhAqjlQ2R1H6AM+KgQCuYWX4O +nzw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1729168203; x=1729773003; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:subject:cc :to:from:date:message-id:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=eau2jkUCayYgBs/JR1nIB5Drz991JgJug5wK7vgjtZ4=; b=mzqcKIT/iX+6EWLKwAbnaO4yH7c464VFUNnB0OHmRcLTD7JcG3cqdiGJcSkpL+Y2+w azmKqRIoJ6ZvnTTz0fQshsZFXWdwV+1Yzgl9ECgtHKnjsQOPN0rXGFJEN5kk/u7ITD5G zxzqLOZ2rqQ+X7D/3xFJvewgVE4PWKj7l37hLEdA7hTm1u7/ERUftY3X5PDMfbyeNgSQ ozpmzeMz0tQx9X2wsKWFPJhoqPFu/yND1b5523cXLuzvEisG9CYsPTJ7iSNayQBjT/NN l79yIy6rIMgG8iogr7eZIBKW1TzRfVYlDNa4RK+RbuvJlwYmXOuefOdj+ImP8Mw/lRoF CKjg== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCUtAiCGS8pP7AqM7B/+3JjhF2nUYGop25iQc5ChxnsYdXC3KnI+cjzCx3HGXls1Kof8N8SP/KW8s9ZSaJk0@vger.kernel.org, AJvYcCV4tTZ15UMSqN5TkHONm+OllEN+eSc9RbRPFQhunUlztNMsE0l21B7UXP/nX36ES2AJmVVw3vYXfAHIUKSB@vger.kernel.org, AJvYcCXLnVS9GtafCvIh7VrOqYo6973fT7DIBjTBqUezlVxc4T03A2GDdN9M6aDiwSDsgw7kfa+tIJGAT25G@vger.kernel.org X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YwT76sqx1vChgjXsg/1wrBUehQJ5TrAopK8daN5apjRoTjqlr2x vV1S14Nb/ugJmpVfnvTa56CMK8pMVJmv+C/6ULTSW9hOFiweCXGO X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IHgAtgVvKla+/LznHYLjG8I8NUeFfcD+iJ8xsZ/gYBEACZ3iYiEiUhczaMF9H/uPCRN3/YQ1Q== X-Received: by 2002:a05:600c:5108:b0:430:9fde:3b92 with SMTP id 5b1f17b1804b1-431255e033bmr210426525e9.14.1729168202861; Thu, 17 Oct 2024 05:30:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from Ansuel-XPS. (93-34-90-105.ip49.fastwebnet.it. [93.34.90.105]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 5b1f17b1804b1-43158c39a33sm24904645e9.13.2024.10.17.05.30.01 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Thu, 17 Oct 2024 05:30:02 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <6711034a.050a0220.1ed172.7fa9@mx.google.com> X-Google-Original-Message-ID: Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2024 14:29:58 +0200 From: Christian Marangi To: Krzysztof Kozlowski Cc: Herbert Xu , "David S. Miller" , Rob Herring , Krzysztof Kozlowski , Conor Dooley , Antoine Tenart , Peter Zijlstra , Ingo Molnar , Will Deacon , Waiman Long , Boqun Feng , Richard van Schagen , linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 2/3] dt-bindings: crypto: Add Inside Secure SafeXcel EIP-93 crypto engine References: <20241017004335.27471-1-ansuelsmth@gmail.com> <20241017004335.27471-2-ansuelsmth@gmail.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: On Thu, Oct 17, 2024 at 10:23:54AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On Thu, Oct 17, 2024 at 02:43:18AM +0200, Christian Marangi wrote: > + > > +description: | > > + The Inside Secure SafeXcel EIP-93 is a cryptographic engine IP block > > + integrated in varios devices with very different and generic name from > > + PKTE to simply vendor+EIP93. The real IP under the hood is actually > > + developed by Inside Secure and given to license to vendors. > > + > > + The IP block is sold with different model based on what feature are > > + needed and are identified with the final letter. Each letter correspond > > + to a specific set of feature and multiple letter reflect the sum of the > > + feature set. > > You write it is licensed to vendors, so are you sure these could be > used alone, without vendor customizations/hookups etc? I think you > should have a dedicated, SoC-specific compatible in the front. I am not > sure if this was discussed already, though. Yes in v1, Rob asked some info about the compatible that was mediatek,mtk-eip93 or airoha,mtk-eip93. The thing is that from what I checked from different documentation around, the register map and how the thing works doesn't change across vendors, what I have seen is at max specific register added that are outside of the crypto module usage (example debug register for BUS bandwidth) Any suggestion on what could be a good compatible? Honestly I'm more tempted of using this similar to how is done by the new model EIP197. > > + > > + EIP-93 models: > > + - EIP-93i: (basic) DES/Triple DES, AES, PRNG, IPsec ESP, SRTP, SHA1 > > + - EIP-93ie: i + SHA224/256, AES-192/256 > > + - EIP-93is: i + SSL/DTLS/DTLS, MD5, ARC4 > > + - EIP-93ies: i + e + s > > + - EIP-93iw: i + AES-XCB-MAC, AES-CCM > > + > > +properties: > > + compatible: > > + enum: > > + - inside-secure,safexcel-eip93i > > + - inside-secure,safexcel-eip93ie > > + - inside-secure,safexcel-eip93is > > + - inside-secure,safexcel-eip93ies > > + - inside-secure,safexcel-eip93iw > > + > > + reg: > > + maxItems: 1 > > + > > + interrupts: > > + maxItems: 1 > > + > > +required: > > + - compatible > > + - reg > > + - interrupts > > + > > +additionalProperties: false > > + > > +examples: > > + - | > > + #include > > + > > + crypto@1e004000 { > > + compatible = "inside-secure,safexcel-eip93ies"; > > + reg = <0x1fb70000 0x1000>; > > Looks like not matching unit address. > Yes sorry a typo, will fix in v3. -- Ansuel