From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D0C87C32771 for ; Wed, 21 Sep 2022 06:27:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S229871AbiIUG1V (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 Sep 2022 02:27:21 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:53216 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229669AbiIUG1Q (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 Sep 2022 02:27:16 -0400 Received: from mail-lf1-x12f.google.com (mail-lf1-x12f.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::12f]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EA31F804B0 for ; Tue, 20 Sep 2022 23:27:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-lf1-x12f.google.com with SMTP id k10so7554190lfm.4 for ; Tue, 20 Sep 2022 23:27:04 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linaro.org; s=google; h=content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:from:references:cc:to :content-language:subject:user-agent:mime-version:date:message-id :from:to:cc:subject:date; bh=Ggttj0ip5WkBjYpw/WnMtLi+fMdRVX8SYzRnIBF97Go=; b=gLNHjBBY/9pUni386AGpx3O5RYp5Fpj57LUMKRw4EAfeA4lfc8LwA9I0XXj+8DtbU1 ieiDGYfv4vNdKyxTVdTy9i5g6Uf9XI/b42ByyBRI1K1nnOn3gZ5fbutzNpgzVNpDK4dV lPMOdtRLs9fOZaKkLq2Ux/QzwuzVwItSFKiSWhAtC2aYqYQ6wLz+OZWKP1tiM4SKeEWh biYCSeyIAjOwT+78hvXPVLTxy1Glc/PlFuJCKt5HRzN3fbkLo4i8afe/xf1PfwXigjCV QG+jsscYr65htWCnsNga28Uomb+ilWsJiNEZtxhLdVgHXRL3hfFvGE9ft1ZMNEKV7DZt /uNg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:from:references:cc:to :content-language:subject:user-agent:mime-version:date:message-id :x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date; bh=Ggttj0ip5WkBjYpw/WnMtLi+fMdRVX8SYzRnIBF97Go=; b=IRx6W1A3A1BGsYO8zkldp6LcYliBh1sxpfrfK0rWTAGDFqbL4HoUShddi4Hw/jPhfX Y/FHphQNnFteCH1RmTSKLWX7HxAe61V1ZJp6U4FLUsYGH5ipHDoqlIpe2XfKQyG6pOVe u3Cg0YJ5aKOcf0Mu1FHzG/5hWmeFj1aQymKbEYWJKe99c55OOZ70s5Os2qSFJ5WTltmf Z3KooXUB7rXNRQT1TrofmS1f+sgCzFeNwwajX+ynwNg5uN6Z/rJJpwIkWpn6nWrGJx12 1JhPGqVt5WxzZ6CAD1vKJkCUBYYjgbcNwnz2pBPbC7ouJ8dStdOmSmgPvLtLUCzbDQg6 Ytkg== X-Gm-Message-State: ACrzQf2BAylDbUHoelq5U5I0PntRPWTTjsgaPcXgz1x8vaQ7qewmwuZK XwjNvVnkUiFHqYjg4p2zfTH7NQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AMsMyM4v+9XrSkx4lonMl2BGq54oTlZZAdiyICLhFmj2KBH2DN43yIwR/rXT2bvseQKlycSOMZUvNQ== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6512:4005:b0:49e:6f0a:b09e with SMTP id br5-20020a056512400500b0049e6f0ab09emr9123696lfb.330.1663741623117; Tue, 20 Sep 2022 23:27:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.0.21] (78-11-189-27.static.ip.netia.com.pl. [78.11.189.27]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id m3-20020a2ea883000000b0026c34bed71csm291411ljq.87.2022.09.20.23.27.01 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 20 Sep 2022 23:27:02 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <37b509ff-4fc2-73f1-b135-c0930075ec29@linaro.org> Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2022 08:27:01 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.13.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 6/9] crypto: qce: core: Add new compatibles for qce crypto driver Content-Language: en-US To: Bhupesh Sharma , linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org Cc: agross@kernel.org, herbert@gondor.apana.org.au, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, robh+dt@kernel.org, linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, thara.gopinath@gmail.com, robh@kernel.org, andersson@kernel.org, bhupesh.linux@gmail.com, davem@davemloft.net, Jordan Crouse References: <20220920114051.1116441-1-bhupesh.sharma@linaro.org> <20220920114051.1116441-7-bhupesh.sharma@linaro.org> <9b111583-519b-95a6-15b5-243e88dc8d39@linaro.org> From: Krzysztof Kozlowski In-Reply-To: <9b111583-519b-95a6-15b5-243e88dc8d39@linaro.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 21/09/2022 08:16, Bhupesh Sharma wrote: > > > On 9/20/22 8:42 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >> On 20/09/2022 13:40, Bhupesh Sharma wrote: >>> Since we decided to use soc specific compatibles for describing >>> the qce crypto IP nodes in the device-trees, adapt the driver >>> now to handle the same. >>> >>> Keep the old deprecated compatible strings still in the driver, >>> to ensure backward compatibility. >>> >>> Cc: Bjorn Andersson >>> Cc: Rob Herring >>> Cc: herbert@gondor.apana.org.au >>> Tested-by: Jordan Crouse >>> Signed-off-by: Bhupesh Sharma >>> --- >>> drivers/crypto/qce/core.c | 9 +++++++++ >>> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+) >>> >>> diff --git a/drivers/crypto/qce/core.c b/drivers/crypto/qce/core.c >>> index 63be06df5519..99ed540611ab 100644 >>> --- a/drivers/crypto/qce/core.c >>> +++ b/drivers/crypto/qce/core.c >>> @@ -291,8 +291,17 @@ static int qce_crypto_remove(struct platform_device *pdev) >>> } >>> >>> static const struct of_device_id qce_crypto_of_match[] = { >>> + /* Following two entries are deprecated (kept only for backward compatibility) */ >>> { .compatible = "qcom,crypto-v5.1", }, >>> { .compatible = "qcom,crypto-v5.4", }, >> >> This is okay, so there is no ABI break. > > Great. Thanks for the confirmation. > >>> + /* Add compatible strings as per updated dt-bindings, here: */ >>> + { .compatible = "qcom,ipq4019-qce", }, >>> + { .compatible = "qcom,ipq6018-qce", }, >>> + { .compatible = "qcom,ipq8074-qce", }, >>> + { .compatible = "qcom,msm8996-qce", }, >>> + { .compatible = "qcom,sdm845-qce", }, >>> + { .compatible = "qcom,sm8150-qce", }, >>> + { .compatible = "qcom,sm8250-qce", }, >> >> This is a bit odd... you have 7 devices which are simply compatible or >> even the same. This should be instead one compatible. >> >> I don't really get why do you want to deprecate "qcom,crypto-v5.1". >> Commit msg only says "we decided" but I do not know who is "we" and "why >> we decided like this". If you want to deprecate it, perfectly fine by >> me, but please say in commit msg why you are doing it. > > I understand. This patchset has been in flight for some time and hence I > might have missed sharing some detailed information about the review > comments and rework done along the way (in the cover letter for this > series). > > Coming back to your concern, here is the relevant background: > - Please see: > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-msm/20210316222825.GA3792517@robh.at.kernel.org/ > > - Rob shared some comments on the v1 series regarding the soc-specific > compatibles. He mentioned in the above thread that 'you should stick > with SoC specific compatibles as *everyone* else does (including most > QCom bindings).' > > - So, while I had proposed "qcom,crypto-v5.1" (for ipq6018) and > "qcom,crypto-v5.4" (for sdm845, sm8150) etc. as the compatible(s) in the > v1 series, I shifted to using the soc-specific compatibles from the v2 > series, onwards. Then the reason could be - Reviewers preferred SoC-based compatible instead of IP-block-version-based. What is confusing is the difference between that link and here. That link wanted to introduce 4 different compatibles... and here you have even 7 compatibles being the same. > > - Basically, since we are going to have newer qce IP versions available > in near future, e.g. "qcom,crypto-v5.5" etc, and we will have 2 or more > SoCs also sharing 1 version, these compatibles would grow and become > more confusing. IMO, having a soc-specific compatible in such cases is > probably a much cleaner approach. > > Hope this helps answer some of your concerns and provides some relevant > background information. Sure, but I still think you should have only one compatible in the driver in such case. You don't have differences between them from the driver point of view, so the devices seem to be compatible. If not, what are the differences? Best regards, Krzysztof