> -----Original Message----- > From: Antoine Tenart <antoine.ten...@bootlin.com> > Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2019 7:33 PM > To: Pascal van Leeuwen <pascalv...@gmail.com> > Cc: linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org; antoine.ten...@bootlin.com; > herb...@gondor.apana.org.au; > da...@davemloft.net; Pascal Van Leeuwen <pvanleeu...@verimatrix.com> > Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] crypto: inside-secure - Added support for the > CHACHA20 skcipher > > Hi Pascal, > > On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 04:38:12PM +0200, Pascal van Leeuwen wrote: > > > > @@ -112,7 +123,7 @@ static void safexcel_cipher_token(struct > > safexcel_cipher_ctx *ctx, u8 > *iv, > > block_sz = DES3_EDE_BLOCK_SIZE; > > cdesc->control_data.options |= > > EIP197_OPTION_2_TOKEN_IV_CMD; > > break; > > - case SAFEXCEL_AES: > > + default: /* case SAFEXCEL_AES */ > > Can't you keep an explicit case here? > If I do that, the compiler will complain about SAFEXCEL_CHACHA20 not being covered. And Chacha20 won't even make it this far, so it doesn't make much sense to add that to the switch.
I suppose an explicit case plus an empty default would be an alternative? But I figured the comment should suffice to remind anyone working on that switch statement what it should really do. I'm fine with either approach. > > block_sz = AES_BLOCK_SIZE; > > cdesc->control_data.options |= > > EIP197_OPTION_4_TOKEN_IV_CMD; > > break; > > Thanks, > Antoine > > -- > Antoine Ténart, Bootlin > Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering > https://bootlin.com Regards, Pascal van Leeuwen Silicon IP Architect, Multi-Protocol Engines @ Verimatrix www.insidesecure.com
