On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 12:03:41PM -0500, atull wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Oct 2015, Moritz Fischer wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 9:18 AM, Josh Cartwright <joshc@xxxxxx> wrote:
> > > 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.
> >
> > Alright, I'll investigate that. Again, for the non-partial reconfig
> > case I'm happy
> > with the behavior as implemented, for the partial reconfig I just
> > haven't run into
> > issues with not dealing with the level shifters.
>
> Are you suggesting pinctrl instead of introducing a FPGA Bridge Framework?
I'm suggesting that for the set of operations/configuration states that
need to be managed _for the Zynq[1]_ during reprogramming, I think
pinctrl might be a good fit.
But the pinctrl state activation would happen in the context of the zynq
fpga_mgr_ops write
I do not think it's a good fit for the socfpga, or for the lower level
fpga drivers _in general_. Nor do I think that the FPGA Bridge
framework, as written, is a good fit for fpgas in general.
Josh
[1]: Speaking only of the Zynq 7000-series, I don't know anything about
the fancy new Zynq MPSoC :)
--
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
