RE: [PATCH] crypto:caam - Modify width of few read only registers

2014-06-12 Thread Ruchika Gupta
Hi Kim -Original Message- From: Kim Phillips [mailto:kim.phill...@freescale.com] Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2014 4:23 AM To: Gupta Ruchika-R66431 Cc: linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org; herb...@gondor.apana.org.au Subject: Re: [PATCH] crypto:caam - Modify width of few read only registers

Re: [PATCH] crypto:caam - Modify width of few read only registers

2014-06-12 Thread Kim Phillips
On Thu, 12 Jun 2014 04:56:14 -0500 Gupta Ruchika-R66431 ruchika.gu...@freescale.com wrote: From: Kim Phillips [mailto:kim.phill...@freescale.com] Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2014 4:23 AM /* Check to see if QI present. If so, enable */ - ctrlpriv-qi_present =

Re: [PATCH] crypto:caam - Modify width of few read only registers

2014-06-11 Thread Kim Phillips
On Tue, 29 Apr 2014 15:34:37 +0530 Ruchika Gupta ruchika.gu...@freescale.com wrote: Few read only registers like CHAVID, CTPR etc were wrongly defined as 64 bit registers. This functioned properly on the powerpc platforms. However ARM SoC's wouldn't function correctly if these registers are

RE: [PATCH] crypto:caam - Modify width of few read only registers

2014-06-10 Thread Ruchika Gupta
08, 2014 5:25 AM To: Gupta Ruchika-R66431 Cc: linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org; herb...@gondor.apana.org.au Subject: Re: [PATCH] crypto:caam - Modify width of few read only registers On Tue, 6 May 2014 23:09:15 -0500 Gupta Ruchika-R66431 ruchika.gu...@freescale.com wrote: Hi Kim, Hi Ruchika

Re: [PATCH] crypto:caam - Modify width of few read only registers

2014-05-24 Thread Marek Vasut
On Thursday, May 08, 2014 at 01:54:42 AM, Kim Phillips wrote: [...] In the first version of guide they were defined as 64 bit. They were later changed to 32 bit once issue was reported while testing on emulator. Latest guide of LS2100 has them modified. A register width column has also

Re: [PATCH] crypto:caam - Modify width of few read only registers

2014-05-07 Thread Kim Phillips
On Tue, 6 May 2014 23:09:15 -0500 Gupta Ruchika-R66431 ruchika.gu...@freescale.com wrote: Hi Kim, Hi Ruchika, From: Kim Phillips [mailto:kim.phill...@freescale.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2014 2:02 AM On Tue, 6 May 2014 05:11:23 -0500 Gupta Ruchika-R66431

Re: [PATCH] crypto:caam - Modify width of few read only registers

2014-05-06 Thread Kim Phillips
On Tue, 6 May 2014 05:11:23 -0500 Gupta Ruchika-R66431 ruchika.gu...@freescale.com wrote: From: Kim Phillips [mailto:kim.phill...@freescale.com] Sent: Friday, May 02, 2014 2:15 AM On Tue, 29 Apr 2014 15:34:37 +0530 Ruchika Gupta ruchika.gu...@freescale.com wrote: Few read only

RE: [PATCH] crypto:caam - Modify width of few read only registers

2014-05-06 Thread Ruchika Gupta
Hi Kim, -Original Message- From: Kim Phillips [mailto:kim.phill...@freescale.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2014 2:02 AM To: Gupta Ruchika-R66431 Cc: linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org; herb...@gondor.apana.org.au Subject: Re: [PATCH] crypto:caam - Modify width of few read only registers

Re: [PATCH] crypto:caam - Modify width of few read only registers

2014-05-01 Thread Kim Phillips
On Tue, 29 Apr 2014 15:34:37 +0530 Ruchika Gupta ruchika.gu...@freescale.com wrote: Few read only registers like CHAVID, CTPR etc were wrongly defined as 64 bit registers. This functioned properly on the powerpc platforms. However ARM SoC's wouldn't function correctly if these registers are

[PATCH] crypto:caam - Modify width of few read only registers

2014-04-29 Thread Ruchika Gupta
Few read only registers like CHAVID, CTPR etc were wrongly defined as 64 bit registers. This functioned properly on the powerpc platforms. However ARM SoC's wouldn't function correctly if these registers are defined as 64 bit. So correcting the definition to two 32 bit registers. Signed-off-by:

[PATCH] crypto:caam - Modify width of few read only registers

2014-04-29 Thread Ruchika Gupta
Few read only registers like CHAVID, CTPR etc were wrongly defined as 64 bit registers. This functioned properly on the powerpc platforms. However ARM SoC's wouldn't function correctly if these registers are defined as 64 bit. So correcting the definition to two 32 bit registers. Signed-off-by: