On Wednesday 09 May 2012, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 2:17 PM, Arnd Bergmann <a...@arndb.de> wrote:
> > How about using distinct identification strings for each version of the
> > crypto hardware? The driver should really only care about what kind
> > of device it is talking to, not which SoC it is built into.
>
> Do you mean like this (from a recent pinctrl driver):
>
> static int __devinit nmk_pinctrl_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> {
> const struct platform_device_id *platid =
> platform_get_device_id(pdev);
> ....
> (Here we use that ID to control runtime codepath)
> }
>
> static const struct platform_device_id nmk_pinctrl_id[] = {
> { "pinctrl-stn8815", PINCTRL_NMK_STN8815 },
> { "pinctrl-db8500", PINCTRL_NMK_DB8500 },
> };
>
> static struct platform_driver nmk_pinctrl_driver = {
> .driver = {
> .owner = THIS_MODULE,
> .name = "pinctrl-nomadik",
> },
> .probe = nmk_pinctrl_probe,
> .id_table = nmk_pinctrl_id,
> };
>
> Here one version of ASIC registers the "pinctrl-db8500" device.
> And so on.
>
> So instead of registering "cryp1" and "hash1", register
> "db8500-cryp-v1", "db8500-cryp-v2" etc for the versions,
> then use the ID to control code path.
>
> Is that what you were thinking of?
Yes, exactly.
Arnd
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-crypto" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
