lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Feb]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [RFC 7/8] fpga-region: add sysfs interface
    On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 11:46:01AM -0600, Alan Tull wrote:
    > On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 11:21 AM, Jason Gunthorpe
    > <jgunthorpe@obsidianresearch.com> wrote:
    > > On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 10:14:20AM -0600, Alan Tull wrote:
    > >> Add a sysfs interface to control programming FPGA.
    > >>
    > >> Each fpga-region will get the following files which set values
    > >> in the fpga_image_info struct for that region. More files will
    > >> need to be added as fpga_image_info expands.
    > >>
    > >> firmware_name
    > >> * writing a name of a FPGA image file to firmware_name causes the
    > >> FPGA region to write the FPGA
    > >>
    > >> partial_config
    > >> * 0 : full reconfiguration
    > >> * 1 : partial reconfiguration
    > >
    > > This is really a property of the bitfile. It would be really nice to
    > > have a saner system for describing the bitfiles that doesn't rely on
    > > so much out of band stuff.

    Agreed.
    > >
    > > Eg when doing partial reconfiguration it would be really sane to have
    > > some checks that the full bitfile is the correct basis for the partial
    > > bitfile.
    > >
    > > It also seems link Zynq needs an encrypted/not encrypted flag..

    Well, we could also run always at half rate and not benefit from faster
    config for the non-encrypted case ;-)

    > > I wonder if we should require a Linux specific header on the bitfile
    > > instead? That would make the bitfile self describing at least.

    > I agree. I've heard some discussions about adding a header. We would
    > want it to not be manufacturer or fpga device specific. That would be
    > nice and would eliminate some of this struct. We would need a tool to
    > add the header, given a bitstream and some info about the bitstream.
    > If the tool communicated seamlessly with vendor's tools that would be
    > nice, but that is complicated to get that to happen. So far nobody
    > has posted their proposals to the mailing list.

    Well, there's not that many vendors out there. If we can figure out a
    format and stick to it, keep it reasonably extensible, 'the vendors'
    will eventually adopt it.

    Cheers,

    Moritz
    [unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2017-02-15 18:55    [W:2.343 / U:0.532 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site