On Fri, Oct 04, 2013 at 04:33:41PM -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > I agree that the firmware interface makes sense when the use of the > > FPGA is an implementation detail in a fixed hardware configuration, > > but that is a fairly restricted use case all things considered. > > Ideally I thought this would be just like "firmware", you dump the file > to the FPGA, it validates it and away you go with a new image running in > the chip. That is 99% of the use cases. The other stuff people are talking about is fringe. I've been doing FPGAs for > 10 years and I've never once used read back via the config bus. In fact all my FPGAs turn that feature off once they are loaded. Partial reconfiguration is very specialized, and hard to use from a FPGA design standpoint. I also think it is sensible to focus this interface on simple SRAM FPGAs, not FLASH based stuff, or whatever complex device required a byte code interpreter (never heard of that before). Jason -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
