Hi Mark

On Mon, 28 Jan 2013, Mark A. Greer wrote:

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

quoted

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

quoted

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

quoted

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

quoted

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.

I was thinking that we might assume that they are present on AM35xx 
ES1.1+.  If the TI folks are saying that they aren't available on only a 
few early devices, I'd guess that means ES1.0.  I personally have never 
seen an ES1.0 AM35xx device... 

Discriminating between ES1.0 and ES1.1+ should be pretty easy in the hwmod 
init...

 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[].  

I'm pretty sure that's going to break on HS OMAPs, like the HS OMAP3430 in 
the N900.  I don't think those IP blocks are directly accessible from 
Linux on most HS setups, although this might vary by device.  I'd feel 
more comfortable if you created an omap34xx_gp_hwmod_ocp_ifs[] list and an 
omap36xx_gp_hwmod_ocp_ifs[] list.  We should probably get rid of 
omap3xxx_gp_hwmod_ocp_ifs[] altogether.

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.

If you want to just leave them commented in am35xx_hwmod_ocp_ifs[], rather 
than enabling them for ES1.1+ AM35xx, that's fine with me too, since we 
don't know that they are ES-level-based.  Maybe put a comment there that 
says that these are likely to be present, but no one seems to know for 
certain?  Seems ludicrous, but I guess that's what we're reduced to!


- Paul