On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 03:27:28PM -0700, Mark A. Greer wrote:

On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 07:13:36PM +0000, Paul Walmsley wrote:

quoted

Hi Mark,

Hi Paul.

Hi again, Paul.  Sorry for the delay, I've been under the weather.

quoted

I regret the delay,

On Tue, 8 Jan 2013, Mark A. Greer wrote:

quoted

On Sun, Dec 23, 2012 at 08:40:43AM +0000, Paul Walmsley wrote:

quoted

What do you think about adding an am35xx_es11plus_hwmod_ocp_ifs[] array to 
omap_hwmod_3xxx_data.c for these secure hwmods?  That carries the implicit 
and possibly wrong assumption that it's likely to be ES1.0 devices that 
are missing the SHAM/AES, but it seems unlikely that TI would have 
multiple silicon revs running around claiming to be ES1.1?  Or maybe I'm 
just being na?ve.

Something like that makes sense to me.  I'll re-read my email, etc. and
see if I can find something to help us figure it out.

I couldn't find any information that helped with this so AFAIK there is no
good way to tell if a particular am35xx has the crypto hardware available
or not.  At this point, I vote for moving 'omap3xxx_l4_core__sham' and
'omap3xxx_l4_core__aes' from omap3xxx_gp_hwmod_ocp_ifs[] and putting them
in omap34xx_hwmod_ocp_ifs[] and omap36xx_hwmod_ocp_ifs[].  That should be
safe in general and if someone with an am35xx wants to use those modules,
they can edit am35xx_hwmod_ocp_ifs[] locally.

What do you think?