On Tue, 13 Jan 2015, Pavel Machek wrote: > On Tue 2015-01-13 09:40:18, Pantelis Antoniou wrote: > > Hi Pavel, > > > > > On Jan 13, 2015, at 09:28 , Pavel Machek <pavel@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > Hi! > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> +What: /sys/class/fpga_manager/<fpga>/firmware > > >>>>>>>>>> +Date: October 2014 > > >>>>>>>>>> +KernelVersion: 3.18 > > >>>>>>>>>> +Contact: Alan Tull <atull@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > >>>>>>>>>> +Description: Name of the FPGA image file to load using firmware > > >>>>>>>>>> class. > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> This one is ugly: it unneccessarily passes firmware name through the > > >>>>>>>>> kernel. Just make interface and code simpler by always passing > > >>>>>>>>> "socfpga-fpga-image" or something like that. > > > ... > > > > > >>> What is cumbersome about symlink? Why is "fake" symlink in sysfs better? > > >>> > > >>>> Previous uses of the firmware layer has been to use it to load once after > > >>>> bootup; this is different since some use cases will want to switch out > > >>>> the FPGA image. If someone wants there to be only one FPGA image on > > >>>> the FGPA forever, they will probably not be using this framework; their > > >>>> FPGA will probably be loaded before Linux boots up. > > >>> > > >>> Why? I have just one image on the fpga, and would prefer to load it > > >>> from Linux. > > >> > > >> Pavel: These patches target staging and sysfs interface doesn't need to be stable > > >> at this time. I would prefer to add these patches to staging for 3.20 > > >> and feel free to send the patch which fix this. > > > > > > Interesting way to address patch review. "We'll merge it, and you can > > > fix it up later". > > > > > >> With your code will be exactly clear how you want to use it and we can > > >> talk about it. > > > > > > I'm pretty sure Alan knows what I want at this point, he just does not > > > want to do it. > > > > > > For the record, I want to drop "firmware" file, use fixed firmware > > > name, and deal with multiple firmwares in userspace (using symlink or > > > udev magic). > > > > That’s completely bogus. Using a fixed firmware file does not respond to > > real world usage, and there are no words to describe the hacks using > > symlinks and udev in an embedded product. > > > > I believe this is simplest solution, should be adequate, and is > > > certainly less ugly than implementing fake symlink in > > > /sys/.../firmware. And I have yet to hear what is wrong with that > > > suggestion. > > > > Everything. > > Can you be more specific? Current solution already has a fake symlink, > implemented badly. > > Just remove it, and use real symlink (and then you can optionally > think of something better...) > Hi Pavel, I still don't get what you are saying. It's not a symlink. I'm not changing it. Alan > > Pavel > -- > (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek > (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html >
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
