[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <VI1PR0402MB34852BFA7E8E44E9B867D76F98E10@VI1PR0402MB3485.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2018 10:04:31 +0000
From: Horia Geanta <horia.geanta@....com>
To: Scott Wood <oss@...error.net>, Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Vabhav Sharma <vabhav.sharma@....com>
CC: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Kate Stewart <kstewart@...uxfoundation.org>,
"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
Michael Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>,
Sriram Dash <sriram.dash@....com>,
linux-clk <linux-clk@...r.kernel.org>,
"open list:THERMAL" <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
"linux-kernel-owner@...r.kernel.org"
<linux-kernel-owner@...r.kernel.org>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Udit Kumar <udit.kumar@....com>,
Varun Sethi <V.Sethi@....com>,
"moderated list:ARM/FREESCALE IMX / MXC ARM ARCHITECTURE"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>,
Priyanka Jain <priyanka.jain@....com>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] arm64: dts: add LX2160ARDB board support
On 8/29/2018 3:31 AM, Scott Wood wrote:
> On Tue, 2018-08-21 at 15:45 -0500, Rob Herring wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 20, 2018 at 1:52 PM Vabhav Sharma <vabhav.sharma@....com> wrote:
>>> +/ {
>>> + 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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists