On Tue, Feb 06, 2018 at 12:53:44PM -0600, Alan Tull wrote: > On Tue, Feb 6, 2018 at 12:47 AM, Wu Hao <hao.wu@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 05, 2018 at 10:25:54PM -0600, Alan Tull wrote: > >> On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 7:47 PM, Wu Hao <hao.wu@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > On Mon, Feb 05, 2018 at 10:36:45AM -0800, Luebbers, Enno wrote: > >> >> Hi Hao, > >> >> > >> >> On Sun, Feb 04, 2018 at 05:37:06PM +0800, Wu Hao wrote: > >> >> > On Fri, Feb 02, 2018 at 04:26:26PM -0800, Luebbers, Enno wrote: > >> >> > > Hi Hao, Alan, > >> >> > > > >> >> > > On Fri, Feb 02, 2018 at 05:42:13PM +0800, Wu Hao wrote: > >> >> > > > On Thu, Feb 01, 2018 at 04:00:36PM -0600, Alan Tull wrote: > >> >> > > > > On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 12:42 AM, Wu Hao <hao.wu@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > Hi Hao, > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > A few comments below. Besides that, looks good. > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > This patch adds fpga manager driver for FPGA Management Engine (FME). It > >> >> > > > > > implements fpga_manager_ops for FPGA Partial Reconfiguration function. > >> >> > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Tim Whisonant <tim.whisonant@xxxxxxxxx> > >> >> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Enno Luebbers <enno.luebbers@xxxxxxxxx> > >> >> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Shiva Rao <shiva.rao@xxxxxxxxx> > >> >> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Christopher Rauer <christopher.rauer@xxxxxxxxx> > >> >> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Kang Luwei <luwei.kang@xxxxxxxxx> > >> >> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Xiao Guangrong <guangrong.xiao@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >> >> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Wu Hao <hao.wu@xxxxxxxxx> > >> >> > > > > > ---- > >> >> > > > > > v3: rename driver to dfl-fpga-fme-mgr > >> >> > > > > > implemented status callback for fpga manager > >> >> > > > > > rebased due to fpga api changes > >> >> > > > > > --- > >> >> > > > > > .../ABI/testing/sysfs-platform-fpga-dfl-fme-mgr | 8 + > >> >> > > > > > drivers/fpga/Kconfig | 6 + > >> >> > > > > > drivers/fpga/Makefile | 1 + > >> >> > > > > > drivers/fpga/fpga-dfl-fme-mgr.c | 318 +++++++++++++++++++++ > >> >> > > > > > drivers/fpga/fpga-dfl.h | 39 ++- > >> >> > > > > > 5 files changed, 371 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > >> >> > > > > > create mode 100644 Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-platform-fpga-dfl-fme-mgr > >> >> > > > > > create mode 100644 drivers/fpga/fpga-dfl-fme-mgr.c > >> >> > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-platform-fpga-dfl-fme-mgr b/Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-platform-fpga-dfl-fme-mgr > >> >> > > > > > new file mode 100644 > >> >> > > > > > index 0000000..2d4f917 > >> >> > > > > > --- /dev/null > >> >> > > > > > +++ b/Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-platform-fpga-dfl-fme-mgr > >> >> > > > > > @@ -0,0 +1,8 @@ > >> >> > > > > > +What: /sys/bus/platform/devices/fpga-dfl-fme-mgr.0/interface_id > >> >> > > > > > +Date: November 2017 > >> >> > > > > > +KernelVersion: 4.15 > >> >> > > > > > +Contact: Wu Hao <hao.wu@xxxxxxxxx> > >> >> > > > > > +Description: Read-only. It returns interface id of partial reconfiguration > >> >> > > > > > + hardware. Userspace could use this information to check if > >> >> > > > > > + current hardware is compatible with given image before FPGA > >> >> > > > > > + programming. > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > I'm a little confused by this. I can understand that the PR bitstream > >> >> > > > > has a dependency on the FPGA's static image, but I don't understand > >> >> > > > > the dependency of the bistream on the hardware that is used to program > >> >> > > > > the bitstream to the FPGA. > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > Sorry for the confusion, the interface_id is used to indicate the version of > >> >> > > > the hardware for partial reconfiguration (it's part of the static image of > >> >> > > > the FPGA device). Will improve the description on this. > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > The interface_id expresses the compatibility of the static region with PR > >> >> > > bitstreams generated for it. It changes every time a new static region is > >> >> > > generated. > >> >> > > > >> >> > > Would it make more sense to have the interface_id exposed as part of the FME > >> >> > > device (which represents the static region)? I'm not sure - it kind of also > >> >> > > makes sense here, where you would have all the information in one place (if the > >> >> > > interface_id matches, I can use this component to program a bitstream). > >> >> > > >> >> > Hi Enno > >> >> > > >> >> > Yes, this interface is under fpga-dfl-fme-mgr.0, and fpga-dfl-fme-mgr.0 is > >> >> > under fpga-dfl-fme.0. It's part of the FME device for sure. From another > >> >> > point of view, it means if anyone wants to do PR on this Intel FPGA device, > >> >> > he needs to find the FME device firstly, and then check if any fpga manager > >> >> > created under this FME device, if yes, check the interface_id before PR via > >> >> > the FME device node ioctl. > >> >> > >> >> That sounds good, thank you! > >> >> > >> >> > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > Sorry for my limited understanding of the infrastructure - would this same > >> >> > > "fpga-dfl-fme-mgr.0" be used for PR if we had multiple PR regions? In that case > >> >> > > it would need to expose multiple interface_ids (or we'd have to track both > >> >> > > interface IDs and an identifier for the target PR region). > >> >> > > >> >> > Yes, the fpga manager could be shared with different PR regions. > >> >> > > >> >> > Sorry, I'm not sure where we need to expose multiple interface_ids and why. > >> >> > >> >> It's basically a question of how to determine bitstream compatibility - either, > >> >> there's a separate interface_id per reconfigurable region, or there is a single > >> >> interface_id for the entire device. Both make sense from a certain perspective. > >> >> > >> >> If there are multiple interface_ids per device (one per region), the driver > >> >> would need to expose all of them. If there's only a single one, the driver only > >> >> exposes that one ID - compatibility would be determined by looking at both that > >> >> single interface_id _and_ the identifier/number of the targeted region. > >> >> > >> >> I would prefer a separate interface_id per region - it seems more generic and > >> >> flexible. > >> > >> Hi Enno, > >> > >> I agree with this. > >> > >> > > >> > It's possible to have per region interface_id (or even both per dev interface_id > >> > and per region interface_id at the same time), but per FME PR sub feature > >> > implementation, it supports multiple PR regions, but only provide one interface > >> > id, so at least in this case, it's not per-region information per my > >> > understanding. We can consider it later when hardware really supports it. : ) > >> > >> Hi Hao, > >> > >> I understand that in the case of this PR hardware, the region to > >> program is selected when the region_id to program is written to a PR > >> hardware control register. For another example, Arria10 has a hard PR > >> hardware and the PR bitstream lands in the area of the FPGA for which > >> it was compiled. In that case, for the PR bitstream to be compatible > >> with a PR region, the layout of the edge connections also needs to be > >> compatible, so compatibility is per-region in that case instead of > >> per-PR hardware. > > > > Hi Alan, > > > > Thanks a lot for the explanation. :) > > > > I fully understand the consideration of adding per-region interface_id. > > > >> And besides, as I said yesterday, the hard PR > >> hardware would not know what the static region ID is when this > >> framework is used with such a device. > > > > Yes, is it possible that hard PR hardware with different versions, requires > > different images or different methods for compatibility checking? > > Because it is really hardware and not something in the FPGA fabric, > the hard PR hardware isn't going to change versions very often. It > has to be designed to be flexible and not add any constraints on the > PR regions. If some feature is added or a bug is fixed, that's just a > driver issue at most and should not affect PR region compatibility. > PR region compatibility would only be dependent on the static FPGA > image and the regions that are created in it. It could be exported in > terms of a single static region ID or per-region ID. > > > > >> > >> That's why I think making the id per-region may be more future proof, > >> even if it may see unnecessary in the case of the original blue bits > >> this was written for. > > > > I feel that per-PR hardware interface id is useful in some cases, and maybe > > in some cases, both per-PR hardware and per-region interface ids are needed > > for its compatibility checking, so shall we leave developers to decide to > > implement per-PR hardware or per-region or both interface ids based on their > > own hardware implementations? How do you think? :) > > That gives us 3 sets of id's. Seems overly complicated and the > userspace would have to figure out which set of id's to use. I want > to see an interface that isn't more complicated than it needs to be > but still can be expected to be ok for the future (as far as we can > anticipate). > > Would per-region id's cause any problems that you can see? I > understand that the region id's would all be the same value for a > given PR hardware in your use case, but that doesn't seem like it > would be hard to implement or that it opens up some possible failure. Hi Alan No, I don't have any concern on per-region id at all. I will remove this sysfs interface_id interface from this driver, and another patch to add a common sysfs interface under the fpga-region. I feel maybe we can use "compat_id" instead of "id" here to avoid confusion for that sysfs interface under fpga-region, as we added a region_id to fpga_image_info, and they have totally different purposes. How do you think? Thanks Hao -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-api" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
