lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Aug]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH RFC] fpga: add FPGA Bus device framework
On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 5:59 AM, Wu, Hao <hao.wu@intel.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 1:25 PM, Wu, Hao <hao.wu@intel.com> wrote:
>> >> On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 2:53 AM, Wu Hao <hao.wu@intel.com> wrote:
>> >> > On Wed, Aug 02, 2017 at 04:16:32PM -0500, Alan Tull wrote:
>> >> >> On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 7:19 AM, Wu Hao <hao.wu@intel.com> wrote:
>> >> >> > This patch is a RFC patch which replaces the patch[1] which
>> >> >> > creates 'fpga-dev' class as container device. It introduces
>> >> >> > a 'fpga' bus type, and provides interfaces to create/destroy
>> >> >> > fpga bus devices. This fpga bus device only could be used as
>> >> >> > a container device, and no drivers needed for it.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > There is no interface change, so this patch could be used
>> >> >> > together with other patches of the original patch set[2].
>> >> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I am wondering whether this could be added to fpga-bridge.c so that
>> >> >> fpga-bridge becomes the fpga bus and fpga bus devices are under it.
>> >> >> The reasons for doing this are discussed in the other thread.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > This following APIs are provided by FPGA Bus device framework:
>> >> >> > * fpga_dev_create
>> >> >> > Create fpga bus device under the given parent device.
>> >> >> > * fpga_dev_destroy
>> >> >> > Destroy fpga bus device
>> >> >>
>> >> >> This is being used in such that each fpga-dev is a container for
>> >> >> platform devices rather than fpga devices. That's not what I was
>> >> >> expecting. :)
>> >> >
>> >> > Hi Alan
>> >> >
>> >> > So does that mean in Intel FPGA PCIe driver, it needs to create
>> >> > a fpga-bridge (as base bridge?),
>> >>
>> >> Yes
>> >>
>> >> > and this fpga-bridge should register
>> >> > a fpga-bus and have a fpga bus device as its child, after that we can
>> >> > use this fpga bus device as container device,
>> >>
>> >> Could the bus code be added to fpga-bridge? Then the base bridge is
>> >> the container device. A fpga-region would be under that and the AFU
>> >> and FME fpga devices would be under it.
>> >>
>> >> > and create sub feature
>> >> > devices (e.g AFU and FME platform device)
>> >>
>> >> We're talking about adding a new bus to the kernel here, not platform bus.
>> >>
>> >> > under it, and user application
>> >> > could locate it in /sys/bus/fpga/devices/. Is my understanding correct? :)
>> >>
>> >> So sysfs may end up something like this in your case:
>> >>
>> >> /sys/bus/fpga/devices/fpga.0/intel-fpga-fme.0
>> >> /sys/bus/fpga/devices/fpga.0/intel-fpga-port.0
>> >> /sys/bus/fpga/devices/fpga.0/intel-fpga-port.1
>> >> /sys/bus/fpga/devices/fpga.0/fpga-mgr0
>> >> /sys/bus/fpga/devices/fpga.0/fpga-br1
>> >> /sys/bus/fpga/devices/fpga.0/fpga-br2
>> >
>> > Hi Alan
>> >
>> > I am a little confused on this.
>> >
>> > It seems that we could not have multiple fpga-br/region/mgr under one device.
>> > As in patch set2, intel-fpga-fme.0 creates platform devices as children, and
>> register
>> > fpga-bridges/regions/mgr under these children platform devices. This is why 3
>> new
>> > platform device driver introduced in this patch set 2 to match with those new
>> created
>> > children platform devices.
>> >
>> > So it is something like this
>> > /sys/bus/fpga/devices/fpga.0/intel-fpga-fme.0/intel-fpga-fme-
>> region.0/fpga_region/region0
>> > /sys/bus/fpga/devices/fpga.0/intel-fpga-fme.0/intel-fpga-fme-
>> region.1/fpga_region/region1
>> > /sys/bus/fpga/devices/fpga.0/intel-fpga-fme.0/intel-fpga-fme-
>> br.0/fpga_bridge/br1
>> > /sys/bus/fpga/devices/fpga.0/intel-fpga-fme.0/intel-fpga-fme-
>> br.1/fpga_region/br2
>> > /sys/bus/fpga/devices/fpga.1
>> > /sys/bus/fpga/devices/fpga.2
>>
>> Hi Hao,
>>
>> OK I see that now. Because the regions, mgr, and bridges are all
>> children of the fme's.
>>
>> >
>> > br0 should be the base bridge. fpga.1 and 2 are the child fpga bus device of
>> fpga bridge.
>> >
>> >>
>> >> /sys/bus/fpga/devices/fpga.1/fpga-region1
>> >> /sys/bus/fpga/devices/fpga.2/fpga-region2
>> >>
>> >> /sys/bus/fpga/devices/fpga.3/intel-fpga-fme.1
>> >> /sys/bus/fpga/devices/fpga.3/intel-fpga-port.2
>> >> /sys/bus/fpga/devices/fpga.3/intel-fpga-port.3
>> >> /sys/bus/fpga/devices/fpga.0/fpga-mgr1
>> >> /sys/bus/fpga/devices/fpga.3/fpga-br4
>> >> /sys/bus/fpga/devices/fpga.3/fpga-br5
>> >>
>> >> /sys/bus/fpga/devices/fpga.4/fpga-region4
>> >> /sys/bus/fpga/devices/fpga.5/fpga-region5
>> >>
>> >> fpga-br0 and 3 are base bridges (on top of PCIe) which show up as
>> >> fpga.0 and 3. Regions 0 and 3 are base regions.
>> >>
>> >> fpga.0 and fpga.3 correspond to the real FPGA devices.
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > And if we have second level fpga-bridge for PR regions, then they
>> >> > should register fpga-bus and fpga bus type device as child too?
>> >> > If yes, then we need a method for user application to distinguish
>> >> > which one represents the FPGA device in /sys/bus/fpga/devices/, right?
>> >>
>> >> To find a bus that is a fpga, userspace only needs to look for busses
>> >> that have an FME (or a mgr).
>> >
>> > Do you mean that check all fpga-dev.x folder to see if anyone has FME?
>> >
>> > Then it is still not friendly to user space, as we may have a lot of bridges
>> > (and regions) on one system.
>>
>> It doesn't sound too hard for userspace code to go through sysfs once
>> and find the FME's.
>>
>> >
>> > And looks like no big difference that we reuse base fpga-region as
>> > container. Search all regionx in /sys/class/fpga_region/ to see if anyone
>> > has a FME.
>> >
>> > How do you think? : )
>>
>> Yes, looking for
>> /sys/class/fpga_region/region*/device/intel-fpga-fme.* That's not so
>> bad, right? :)
>>
>> Then the fpga-dev stuff can go away and we can stop worrying about all
>> the issues involved in implementing a fpga bus or class.
>
> Hi Alan
>
> Thanks for your feedback.
>
> I think the only concern here is I'm not sure if we will have some fpga devices
> with a large number fpga regions (e.g 100+) in the future. If there are many
> regions in the system, then the enduser / application needs to search all the
> regions one by one, which seems not perfect.

Well your library could do so, I suppose a clever libudev enumerate could work,
too, I suppose.

Cheers,

Moritz

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-08-14 19:05    [W:0.064 / U:0.428 seconds]
©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site