Hi Kim, On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 2:43 PM, Kim Phillips <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, 5 Mar 2013 08:19:59 -0500 > Akshay Saraswat <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Tested with command "hash sha256 0x40008000 0x2B 0x40009000". >> Used mm and md to write a standard string to memory location >> 0x40008000 and ran the above command to verify the output. > > patches 1,2,4,5 all contain this "tested with" text, yet obviously > were not. It also indicates that a data buffer that's > 8MB was not > tested?
Would be useful to test a larger transfer. > > I also asked about speed relative to software running on the core > and didn't get a response. Software should be faster up to > a certain buffer size: what is that threshold? You can fairly easily do that by temporarily modifying your patch to use "acesha1" for the name, enable CONFIG_CMD_TIME, then you can compare the two with: time hash sha1 <addr> <size> time hash acesha1 <addr> <size> > >> Changes sice v3: >> - Changed command names to lower case in algo struct. >> - Added generic ace_sha config. > > I wouldn't call "ace" a generic name - crypto units other than > ACE should be able to use this code. I don't really understand this comment. A new CONFIG has been added, and this is specific to that unit. Are you suggesting that it be CONFIG_EXYNOS_ACE_SHA? Will the ACE unit not appear on any other SOC? But I don't think crypto units other than ACE will use the code in this patch - it is intended to implement ACE support, and put it ahead of software support in terms of priority. Regards, Simon > > Kim > > _______________________________________________ > U-Boot mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list [email protected] http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
