Hi Kim,
On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 9:04 PM, Kim Phillips kim.phillips@freescale.com wrote:
On Tue, 5 Mar 2013 17:51:00 -0800 Simon Glass sjg@chromium.org wrote:
[snip for Kim]
Changes sice v3: - Changed command names to lower case in algo struct. - Added generic ace_sha config.
I wouldn't call "ace" a generic name - crypto units other than ACE should be able to use this code.
I don't really understand this comment. A new CONFIG has been added, and this is specific to that unit. Are you suggesting that it be
right, and that's the problem - it needn't be specific to that unit.
Really? I think here we have a patch for an ACE unit, and currently the only implementation is in an Exynos chip. It can easily be extended later when someone else has one.
CONFIG_EXYNOS_ACE_SHA? Will the ACE unit not appear on any other SOC?
my point is other SoCs can use the same entry in the array - there's nothing h/w-vendor or model-specific about it.
OK, know you of such an SOC?
Something like CONFIG_HW_SHA{1,256} ought to do it.
But I don't think crypto units other than ACE will use the code in this patch - it is intended to implement ACE support, and put it ahead of software support in terms of priority.
the same priority that any h/w accelerated device would get - higher than that of software crypto.
Another question for Akshay wrt the timeout (since I never got a reply re: documentation): how can the h/w fault?
Kim
oh, and please stop full-quoting - I'm tired of looking at my scrollbar go by with no inline content.
I will try harder. You could look at trying another mailer :-)
Thanks,
Kim
Regards, Simon