Hi Tudor, all,
On 19/08/2023 at 16:34, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
On 10/08/2023 09:22, Tudor Ambarus wrote:
quoted
On 8/10/23 06:38, Varshini.Rajendran@microchip.com wrote:
quoted
quoted
On 7/28/23 11:24, Varshini Rajendran wrote:
quoted
Add DT bindings for atmel TDES.
NACK. The atmel crypto drivers check the version at runtime and
fill a capabilities structure based on the version identified.
There's a single compatible regardless of the version of the IP
used until now, why do you want to change it?
Hi Tudor,
Hi,
quoted
I am aware that there is no change in the crypto IP used. This patch is
Actually, recent history showed us that it's not only the IP itself but its integration into final product that could have an influence on the behavior.
quoted
quoted
to add a SoC specific compatible as expected by writing-bindings
guideline. Maybe a bit more explanation in the commit description might
do the trick.
So you add a compatible that will never be used just to comply with
the writing bindings guideline?
How do you know that it is never going to be used? The guideline asks
for this on purpose, so any future quirks or incompatibilities can be
easily addressed.
In this recent case, having a an adapted compatibility string is an added value.
And yes, I changed my mind and would like to be systematic now with at91/microchip DT compatibility strings. Our long history and big legacy in arm-soc is sometimes difficult to handle, but we're moving little by little to comply with guidelines.
My conclusion is that Varshini's addition is the way to go.
Best regards,
Nicolas
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel