On Tue, Sep 01, 2020 at 01:40:15PM +0200, Maxime Ripard wrote:
On Tue, Sep 01, 2020 at 12:57:19PM +0200, Corentin Labbe wrote:
On Tue, Sep 01, 2020 at 11:32:49AM +0200, Maxime Ripard wrote:
On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 09:30:59AM +0200, Martin Cerveny wrote:
Like A33 "sun4i-ss" has a difference, it give SHA1 digest
directly in BE. So add new compatible.
Tested-by: Martin Cerveny <m.cerveny@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
The Tested-by tag is for the other developpers. You're very much
expected to have tested your patch before contributing it.
Signed-off-by: Martin Cerveny <m.cerveny@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
.../bindings/crypto/allwinner,sun4i-a10-crypto.yaml | 5 ++++-
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/crypto/allwinner,sun4i-a10-crypto.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/crypto/allwinner,sun4i-a10-crypto.yaml
index fc823572b..180efd13a 100644
--- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/crypto/allwinner,sun4i-a10-crypto.yaml
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/crypto/allwinner,sun4i-a10-crypto.yaml
@@ -25,6 +25,7 @@ properties:
- const: allwinner,sun4i-a10-crypto
- items:
- const: allwinner,sun8i-a33-crypto
+ - const: allwinner,sun8i-v3s-crypto
If it's compatible with the A33, why do we need to introduce a new compatible?
reg:
maxItems: 1
@@ -59,7 +60,9 @@ if:
properties:
compatible:
contains:
- const: allwinner,sun6i-a31-crypto
+ oneOf:
+ - const: allwinner,sun6i-a31-crypto
+ - const: allwinner,sun8i-v3s-crypto
I guess the A33 compatible should be on that list as well?
This is the list of "need reset".
So we cannot use allwinner,sun8i-a33-crypto
Probably this explanation should be in the commit message.
But the A33 has a reset in the DTSI
Oh right so I need to send a fix for that and Martin Cerveny could simply use the "allwinner,sun8i-a33-crypto" (and so keep only patch #1(DTS))
Regards