[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1f492c4e-2125-73eb-8523-389e24727516@linaro.org>
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2023 08:07:43 +0200
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To: Om Prakash Singh <quic_omprsing@...cinc.com>,
konrad.dybcio@...aro.org
Cc: agross@...nel.org, andersson@...nel.org, conor+dt@...nel.org,
davem@...emloft.net, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
herbert@...dor.apana.org.au, krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org,
linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, marijn.suijten@...ainline.org,
robh+dt@...nel.org, vkoul@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] dt-bindings: crypto: qcom,prng: Add SM8450
On 21/08/2023 02:52, Om Prakash Singh wrote:
> I meant first one. using "qcom,rng-ee".
Then please provide some reasons.
>
> I am looking for generic compatible string for all SoCs for which core
> clock can be optional, same as we have "qcom,prng-ee".
There is a generic compatible already... but anyway, is the clock really
optional? Or just configured by firmware?
>
> If we are using SoC name in compatible string, for each SoC support we
> need to update qcom,prng.yaml file.
So you were talking about second case from my email? Still not sure what
you want to propose, but just in case - please always follow DT bindings
guidelines:
https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.1-rc1/source/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/writing-bindings.rst#L42
Best regards,
Krzysztof
Powered by blists - more mailing lists