[PATCH 1/3] dt: Add DT bindings documentation for SUNXI Security System

[Marek Vasut]

On Saturday, May 24, 2014 at 09:20:03 PM, Tomasz Figa wrote:
> Hi Marek,
> 
> On 24.05.2014 13:21, Marek Vasut wrote:
> > On Thursday, May 22, 2014 at 05:09:54 PM, LABBE Corentin wrote:
> > 
> > Missing commit message. Please fix this and send a V2.
> > 
> >> Signed-off-by: LABBE Corentin <clabbe.montjoie at gmail.com>
> >> ---
> >> 
> >>  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/crypto/sunxi-ss.txt | 9 +++++++++
> >>  1 file changed, 9 insertions(+)
> >>  create mode 100644
> >>  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/crypto/sunxi-ss.txt
> >> 
> >> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/crypto/sunxi-ss.txt
> >> b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/crypto/sunxi-ss.txt new file mode
> >> 100644
> >> index 0000000..356563b
> >> --- /dev/null
> >> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/crypto/sunxi-ss.txt
> >> @@ -0,0 +1,9 @@
> >> +* Allwinner Security System found on A20 SoC
> >> +
> >> +Required properties:
> >> +- compatible : Should be "allwinner,sun7i-a20-crypto".
> > 
> > Why sun7i-a20 ? Is the crypto unit different in other sunxi chips ? Can
> > that not be described by DT props ?
> 
> A widely used convention is to define compatible strings after first
> SoCs on which particular IP blocks appear. It is quite common among IP
> blocks for which there is no well defined versioning scheme.

Well yeah, that's fine. But in this case, "sun7i" is the entire group of CPUs 
manufactured by AW. I find that information redundant, the "allwinner,a20-
crypto" would suffice. But I wonder if that IP block might have appeared even 
earlier ? Or if it is CPU family specific, thus "allwinner,sun7i-crypto" would 
be a better string ?

Best regards,
Marek Vasut