Hi Andrew
> -----Original Message-----
> From: abres...@google.com [mailto:abres...@google.com] On Behalf Of
> Andrew Bresticker
> Sent: 10 November 2014 17:30
> To: James Hartley
> Cc: herb...@gondor.apana.org.au; da...@davemloft.net; Grant Likely; Rob
> Herring; a...@linux-foundation.org; Greg Kroah-Hartman;
> j...@perches.com; mche...@osg.samsung.com; cr...@iki.fi;
> jg1....@samsung.com; linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org;
> devicet...@vger.kernel.org; Pawel Moll; Mark Rutland; Ian Campbell; Kumar
> Gala; Ezequiel Garcia
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] Documentation: crypto: Add DT binding info for the
> img hw hash accelerator
>
> Hi James,
>
> On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 4:10 AM, James Hartley
> <james.hart...@imgtec.com> wrote:
> > Signed-off-by: James Hartley <james.hart...@imgtec.com>
>
> A brief commit message describing the hardware and where it's found would
> be nice.
>
> > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/crypto/img-hash.txt
> > b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/crypto/img-hash.txt
>
> > @@ -0,0 +1,28 @@
> > +* Imagination Technologies Ltd. Hash Accelerator
> > +
> > +The hash accelerator provides hardware hashing acceleration for SHA1,
> > +SHA224, SHA256 and MD5 hashes
> > +
> > +Required properties:
> > +
> > +- compatible : "img,img-hash-accelerator-rev1"
>
> I know I mentioned in the internal review that it would be good to have
> some sort of version indicator, but it looks like from the TRM that the
> version
> is probable (CR_HASH_CORE_REV). If we expect probing for the revision
> number to be sufficient, then perhaps "rev1" can be dropped? Also, the
> second "img" is redundant.
Yes the core ID and versions are available, so I'll drop rev-1, and remove the
second img.
>
> > +- reg : Offset and length of the register set for the module, and the
> > +DMA port
> > +- interrupts : The designated IRQ line for the hashing module.
> > +- dmas : DMA specifier as per
> > +Documentation/devicetree/bindings/dma/dma.txt
> > +- dma-names : Should be "tx"
> > +- bus-addr : The bus address for the input data for hashing block
>
> I think this can be dropped. This is the same as the second "reg"
> entry above, is it not?
Yes, that should not have made it through to the patch - it will be removed.
Thanks,
James.
N�����r��y����b�X��ǧv�^�){.n�+����{�r��������ܨ}���Ơz�&j:+v�������zZ+��+zf���h���~����i���z� �w���?�����&�)ߢf
