On 25 March 2014 16:46, Andreas Färber <[email protected]> wrote: > Am 25.03.2014 17:27, schrieb Ard Biesheuvel: >> @@ -630,6 +630,8 @@ enum arm_features { >> ARM_FEATURE_V8_AES, /* implements AES part of v8 Crypto Extensions */ >> ARM_FEATURE_CBAR, /* has cp15 CBAR */ >> ARM_FEATURE_CRC, /* ARMv8 CRC instructions */ >> + ARM_FEATURE_V8_SHA1, /* implements SHA1 part of v8 Crypto Extensions */ >> + ARM_FEATURE_V8_SHA256, /* implements SHA256 part of v8 Crypto >> Extensions */ >> }; > > Do these really need to be separate features? We only have 32 feature > bits.
No, we have 64. We overflowed 32 bits a little while back :-) > Maybe even an ARM_FEATURE_CRYPTO for AES, SHA1, SHA256 would do? It's arguable. The ARM ARM defines the crypto extensions as a single extension with all these items in it, but the ID registers allow for more finely grained distinctions. I wouldn't obejct if we want to rename the V8_AES feature as V8_CRYPTO, or if we just have a single V8_SHA bit, but I don't think it's critical either way. thanks -- PMM
