| Message ID | 20230202135036.2635376-10-vladimir.zapolskiy@linaro.org |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
| Series | crypto: qcom-qce: Add YAML bindings & support for newer SoCs | expand |
Hi Krzysztof, On 2/2/23 16:01, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On 02/02/2023 14:50, Vladimir Zapolskiy wrote: >> From: Bhupesh Sharma <bhupesh.sharma@linaro.org> >> >> 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 <andersson@kernel.org> >> Cc: Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org> >> Cc: herbert@gondor.apana.org.au >> Tested-by: Jordan Crouse <jorcrous@amazon.com> >> Signed-off-by: Bhupesh Sharma <bhupesh.sharma@linaro.org> >> [vladimir: added more SoC specfic compatibles] >> Signed-off-by: Vladimir Zapolskiy <vladimir.zapolskiy@linaro.org> >> --- >> drivers/crypto/qce/core.c | 12 ++++++++++++ >> 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/crypto/qce/core.c b/drivers/crypto/qce/core.c >> index 8e496fb2d5e2..2420a5ff44d1 100644 >> --- a/drivers/crypto/qce/core.c >> +++ b/drivers/crypto/qce/core.c >> @@ -291,8 +291,20 @@ 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", }, >> + /* 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", }, >> + { .compatible = "qcom,sm8350-qce", }, >> + { .compatible = "qcom,sm8450-qce", }, >> + { .compatible = "qcom,sm8550-qce", }, > I did not agree with this at v7 and I still do not agree. We already did > some effort to clean this pattern in other drivers, so to make it clear > - driver does not need 10 compatibles because they are the same. Here is a misunderstanding, the compatibles are not the same and it shall not be assumed this way, only the current support of the IP on different SoCs in the driver is the same. Later on every minor found difference among IPs will require to break DTB ABI, if all of the particular SoC specific comaptibles are not listed. > And before anyone responds that we need SoC-specific compatibles, yes, we > need them, its is obvious, but in the bindings. Not in the driver. > > Please go with SoC compatible fallback, as many times encouraged by Rob. > Worst case go with generic fallback compatible. > -- Best wishes, Vladimir
On 02/02/2023 15:15, Vladimir Zapolskiy wrote: > Hi Krzysztof, > > On 2/2/23 16:01, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >> On 02/02/2023 14:50, Vladimir Zapolskiy wrote: >>> From: Bhupesh Sharma <bhupesh.sharma@linaro.org> >>> >>> 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 <andersson@kernel.org> >>> Cc: Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org> >>> Cc: herbert@gondor.apana.org.au >>> Tested-by: Jordan Crouse <jorcrous@amazon.com> >>> Signed-off-by: Bhupesh Sharma <bhupesh.sharma@linaro.org> >>> [vladimir: added more SoC specfic compatibles] >>> Signed-off-by: Vladimir Zapolskiy <vladimir.zapolskiy@linaro.org> >>> --- >>> drivers/crypto/qce/core.c | 12 ++++++++++++ >>> 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+) >>> >>> diff --git a/drivers/crypto/qce/core.c b/drivers/crypto/qce/core.c >>> index 8e496fb2d5e2..2420a5ff44d1 100644 >>> --- a/drivers/crypto/qce/core.c >>> +++ b/drivers/crypto/qce/core.c >>> @@ -291,8 +291,20 @@ 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", }, >>> + /* 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", }, >>> + { .compatible = "qcom,sm8350-qce", }, >>> + { .compatible = "qcom,sm8450-qce", }, >>> + { .compatible = "qcom,sm8550-qce", }, >> I did not agree with this at v7 and I still do not agree. We already did >> some effort to clean this pattern in other drivers, so to make it clear >> - driver does not need 10 compatibles because they are the same. > > Here is a misunderstanding, the compatibles are not the same and it shall > not be assumed this way, only the current support of the IP on different SoCs > in the driver is the same. They are the same for the driver. It's the same what we fixed for SDHCI and other cases. Why this should be treated differently? > > Later on every minor found difference among IPs will require to break DTB ABI, > if all of the particular SoC specific comaptibles are not listed. No, why? Why SDHCI and hundreds of other devices are not affected and this one is? Best regards, Krzysztof
On 02/02/2023 15:20, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On 02/02/2023 15:15, Vladimir Zapolskiy wrote: >> Hi Krzysztof, >> >> On 2/2/23 16:01, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>> On 02/02/2023 14:50, Vladimir Zapolskiy wrote: >>>> From: Bhupesh Sharma <bhupesh.sharma@linaro.org> >>>> >>>> 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 <andersson@kernel.org> >>>> Cc: Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org> >>>> Cc: herbert@gondor.apana.org.au >>>> Tested-by: Jordan Crouse <jorcrous@amazon.com> >>>> Signed-off-by: Bhupesh Sharma <bhupesh.sharma@linaro.org> >>>> [vladimir: added more SoC specfic compatibles] >>>> Signed-off-by: Vladimir Zapolskiy <vladimir.zapolskiy@linaro.org> >>>> --- >>>> drivers/crypto/qce/core.c | 12 ++++++++++++ >>>> 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/drivers/crypto/qce/core.c b/drivers/crypto/qce/core.c >>>> index 8e496fb2d5e2..2420a5ff44d1 100644 >>>> --- a/drivers/crypto/qce/core.c >>>> +++ b/drivers/crypto/qce/core.c >>>> @@ -291,8 +291,20 @@ 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", }, >>>> + /* 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", }, >>>> + { .compatible = "qcom,sm8350-qce", }, >>>> + { .compatible = "qcom,sm8450-qce", }, >>>> + { .compatible = "qcom,sm8550-qce", }, >>> I did not agree with this at v7 and I still do not agree. We already did >>> some effort to clean this pattern in other drivers, so to make it clear >>> - driver does not need 10 compatibles because they are the same. >> >> Here is a misunderstanding, the compatibles are not the same and it shall >> not be assumed this way, only the current support of the IP on different SoCs >> in the driver is the same. It seems the IP version is discoverable, in this case it's perfectly valid to have a generic compatible along a soc specific compatible. It has been done and validated multiple times, like for the ARM Mali Bifrost [1] I'll propose then to add a generic "qcom,crypto" as fallback to all of those new compatibles and clearly document that this is only for crypto IP cores versions that have the runtime version discoverable. We could even add a major version generic fallback compatible like "qcom,crypto-v5" or "qcom,crypto-v5.x" to differentiate from older crypto devices. Neil > > They are the same for the driver. It's the same what we fixed for SDHCI > and other cases. Why this should be treated differently? > >> >> Later on every minor found difference among IPs will require to break DTB ABI, >> if all of the particular SoC specific comaptibles are not listed. > > No, why? Why SDHCI and hundreds of other devices are not affected and > this one is? > > Best regards, > Krzysztof > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20190401080949.14550-1-narmstrong@baylibre.com/
On 03/02/2023 10:19, Neil Armstrong wrote: > On 02/02/2023 15:20, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >> On 02/02/2023 15:15, Vladimir Zapolskiy wrote: >>> Hi Krzysztof, >>> >>> On 2/2/23 16:01, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>>> On 02/02/2023 14:50, Vladimir Zapolskiy wrote: >>>>> From: Bhupesh Sharma <bhupesh.sharma@linaro.org> >>>>> >>>>> 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 <andersson@kernel.org> >>>>> Cc: Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org> >>>>> Cc: herbert@gondor.apana.org.au >>>>> Tested-by: Jordan Crouse <jorcrous@amazon.com> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Bhupesh Sharma <bhupesh.sharma@linaro.org> >>>>> [vladimir: added more SoC specfic compatibles] >>>>> Signed-off-by: Vladimir Zapolskiy <vladimir.zapolskiy@linaro.org> >>>>> --- >>>>> drivers/crypto/qce/core.c | 12 ++++++++++++ >>>>> 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+) >>>>> >>>>> diff --git a/drivers/crypto/qce/core.c b/drivers/crypto/qce/core.c >>>>> index 8e496fb2d5e2..2420a5ff44d1 100644 >>>>> --- a/drivers/crypto/qce/core.c >>>>> +++ b/drivers/crypto/qce/core.c >>>>> @@ -291,8 +291,20 @@ 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", }, >>>>> + /* 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", }, >>>>> + { .compatible = "qcom,sm8350-qce", }, >>>>> + { .compatible = "qcom,sm8450-qce", }, >>>>> + { .compatible = "qcom,sm8550-qce", }, >>>> I did not agree with this at v7 and I still do not agree. We already did >>>> some effort to clean this pattern in other drivers, so to make it clear >>>> - driver does not need 10 compatibles because they are the same. >>> >>> Here is a misunderstanding, the compatibles are not the same and it shall >>> not be assumed this way, only the current support of the IP on different SoCs >>> in the driver is the same. > > It seems the IP version is discoverable, in this case it's perfectly valid > to have a generic compatible along a soc specific compatible. > > It has been done and validated multiple times, like for the ARM Mali Bifrost [1] > > I'll propose then to add a generic "qcom,crypto" as fallback to > all of those new compatibles and clearly document that this is only > for crypto IP cores versions that have the runtime version discoverable. Yes, this is good idea. > > We could even add a major version generic fallback compatible like "qcom,crypto-v5" or "qcom,crypto-v5.x" > to differentiate from older crypto devices. Since we have mapping of versions to SoC, it's also fine. Best regards, Krzysztof
diff --git a/drivers/crypto/qce/core.c b/drivers/crypto/qce/core.c index 8e496fb2d5e2..2420a5ff44d1 100644 --- a/drivers/crypto/qce/core.c +++ b/drivers/crypto/qce/core.c @@ -291,8 +291,20 @@ 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", }, + /* 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", }, + { .compatible = "qcom,sm8350-qce", }, + { .compatible = "qcom,sm8450-qce", }, + { .compatible = "qcom,sm8550-qce", }, {} }; MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, qce_crypto_of_match);