linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/3] dt-bindings: crypto: qcom,prng: Add SM8450

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 21 Aug 2023 06:22:09 +0530
From:   Om Prakash Singh <quic_omprsing@...cinc.com>
To:     Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>,
        <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

I meant first one. using "qcom,rng-ee".

I am looking for generic compatible string for all SoCs for which core 
clock can be optional, same as we have "qcom,prng-ee".

If we are using SoC name in compatible string, for each SoC support we 
need to update qcom,prng.yaml file.

Please suggest approach that we can followed!

Thanks,
Om

On 8/19/2023 1:15 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 18/08/2023 18:17, Om Prakash Singh wrote:
>> Instead of having SoC name "qcom,sm8450-prng-ee" we could use "qcom,rng-ee" as
>> new IP core is not longer pseudo random number generator. so "prng" can be
>> changed to "rng". Clock configuration is not needed on sm8550 as well. So it is
>> better to use generic compatible string.
> 
> I am not sure if I understand your point. You mean drop "p" in "prng" or
> drop specific compatible? The first depends in the block - if it is
> still pseudo. The second - why? That's contradictory to what is in the
> guidelines and what we have been pushing for very long time. Going
> against guidelines would require proper justification (and not some
> usual justification "I don't need it", because we talked about this many
> many times). One should not bring downstream poor practices to upstream,
> but the other way. You should fix downstream code.
> 
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof
>