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

[Kim Phillips]

On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 18:55:34 +0200
Segher Boessenkool <segher at kernel.crashing.org> wrote:

> >> 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.

right, they refer to devices in multiple physical parts you can buy.
Part-you-can-buy documentation clearly indicates the SEC version in
that part, in the form "SEC X.Y", i.e, it's not something made up
that's not already in freescale documentation.

> >> 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.

the binding shouldn't be responsible for google's shortcomings (that
hit is correct, btw).

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

sounds like you're pointing out a lack of "SEC versions guide"
documentation of Freescale..

> > 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.
> 
I'm under the impression that listing the differences (assuming they're
easily obtainable) would lead to unnecessary b-w-of bloat.

> >> 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"?  ;-)

I don't know what google does; I'd search freescale documentation
directly.

Kim