On Wed, 30 Apr 2025, Huacai Chen wrote: > On Wed, Apr 30, 2025 at 4:47 PM Qunqin Zhao <zhaoqun...@loongson.cn> wrote: > > > > > > 在 2025/4/30 下午4:18, Herbert Xu 写道: > > > On Wed, Apr 30, 2025 at 04:14:40PM +0800, Qunqin Zhao wrote: > > >> Sorry to bother you, may i ask is it fine to move the Security Engine > > >> base > > >> driver[Patch v8 1/5] to drivers/crypto ? > > >> > > >> The base driver uses MFD interface to register child device(tpm, rng) > > >> , as > > >> done in > > >> > > >> "drivers/iio/common/ssp_sensors/ssp_dev.c" and > > >> "drivers/firmware/xilinx/zynqmp.c". > > >> > > >> Thank you, and I look forward to hearing from you. > > > I don't mind at this point in time. But if this driver were to > > > develop features way outside of the Crypto API in future then I > > > may change my mind. > > > > Hi, Herbert, thanks for your reply. > > > > In future it just add child platform devices name(sm2, sm3, sm4) to > > "struct mfd_cell engines". > > > > > > Hi, Huaci > > > > Let's go via Herbert's crypto tree for the base driver patch under > > drivers/crypto/loongson/, > > > > What do you think of it? > In my opinion drivers/mfd is better, because another user is in > drivers/char rather than drivers/crypto. > > But if moving to drivers/crypto is what Lee Jones wants, then everything is > OK.
You can move the driver, but then you must not reference or use the MFD API. -- Lee Jones [李琼斯]
