On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 08:37:51AM -0700, Moritz Fischer wrote: > On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 3:07 AM, Josh Cartwright <joshc@xxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 05:09:12PM -0500, atull@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > >> From: Alan Tull <atull@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >> > >> The Simple FPGA bus uses the FPGA Manager Framework and the > >> FPGA Bridge Framework to provide a manufactorer-agnostic > >> interface for reprogramming FPGAs that is Device Tree > >> Overlays-based. > > > > Do you intend the "simple-fpga-bus" to be used on Zynq as well? The > > whole concept of the socfpga's "FPGA Bridge" doesn't map to the Zynq at > > all, from what I can tell. > > For Zynq the zynq-fpga driver takes care of the level shifters on full > reconfiguration, > and doesn't for partial reconfiguration. Now depending on which parts > of the fabric > are partial reconfigured (say AXI masters), one might run into issues > with a setup like that. > > My first plan was to counter that by using zynq-reset to hold the > reset high during > reconfiguration of that part of the FPGA. > > I'm happy to rethink that part and maybe redo the level shifters and > resets together in a bridge > driver under devicetree control gives finer grained control. There is already a framework which is used to describe and manipulate level shifting/other IO properties, and that is pinctrl, and if we wanted to use an appropriate abstraction, I think pinctrl would be the best bet. Implementing the FPGA Bridge interface in the Zynq driver because it's what the core expects is just backwards. It's an abstraction inversion. Josh -- 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
