[PATCH v2] update crypto node definition and device tree instances

[Segher Boessenkool]

>> Also, these made-up names make you do more work: you'll need to
>
> who said they were made up?

I did.  These names do not refer to some physical part you can buy.

>> write up a binding for them, explaining exactly what a 1.0 device
>> etc. is (or at least point to documentation for it).  If you use
>> a name that refers to some device that people can easily google
>> for documentation, you can skip this (well, you might need to
>> write a binding anyway; but at least you won't have to explain
>> what the device _is_).
>
> documentation is available in the usual places, and it specifically
> points out which SEC version it references.

I can't find a manual online for "freescale sec"; googling
for "freescale sec-1.0" finds a manual for the PowerQUICC I;
is that the right one?  I don't know, so the binding needs
to explain it to me.

Going from SoC name -> SEC version is easy, but the other way around
not so.

Anyway, minor stuff.

> Plus, as I mentioned
> before, a lot of the differences between the SEC versions are miniscule
> feature bits scattered across the programming model.

I don't see how this is relevant, sorry.

>> Using actual model names also reduces the namespace pollution
>> (hopefully Freescale will not create some other MPC8272 device
>> ever, so "fsl,mpc8272-whatever" will never be a nice name to
>> use for any other device; OTOH, it's likely that Freescale will
>> create some other device called "SEC" (there are only so many
>> TLAs, after all), so "fsl,sec-n.m" isn't as future-proof.
>
> I doubt that; the SEC has been around for about a decade now and that
> hasn't happened.

You'll have to admit a three-letter acronym is a bigger namespace
squatter than a nice long name is.  But it's your namespace, I don't
care.

i tried googling for "freescale sec" to find any other devices called
SEC, but that didn't work out.  What is "insider trading"?  ;-)


Segher