On 8/29/2018 3:31 AM, Scott Wood wrote:

On Tue, 2018-08-21 at 15:45 -0500, Rob Herring wrote:

quoted

On Mon, Aug 20, 2018 at 1:52 PM Vabhav Sharma [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

+/ {
+       model = "NXP Layerscape LX2160ARDB";
+       compatible = "fsl,lx2160a-rdb", "fsl,lx2160a";
+
+       aliases {
+               crypto = &crypto;

Drop this. Aliases should be numbered, and this is not a standard
alias name either.

Is this a new rule?  In any case, U-Boot looks for a "crypto" alias.

(Replying here, I did not see a follow-up).

Indeed, U-boot relies on the "crypto" alias.
This is true for all SoCs with CAAM crypto engine, a pretty lengthy list.

Could you please clarify?
Also: Is numbering needed even when there is a single instance of the block?

Looking at a recent discussion
https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/patch/991718
I see the proposal is for the ID to be optional:

Alias names are often suffixed with a numeric ID, especially when there may
be multiple instances of the same type. The ID typically corresponds to the

[...]

Thanks,
Horia