> -----Original Message----- > From: linux-fpga-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <linux-fpga-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > On Behalf Of Xu Yilun > Sent: Monday, June 29, 2020 10:19 AM > To: trix@xxxxxxxxxx > Cc: mdf@xxxxxxxxxx; linux-fpga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux- > kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Wu, Hao <hao.wu@xxxxxxxxx>; > matthew.gerlach@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: [PATCH] fpga: dfl: improve configuration of dfl pci devices > > I think maybe we don't have to select them all. It is now possible for > FPGA DFL boards to work without FME or AFU, providing limited > functionality. It is possible designers trim the bitstream for their > purpose, and also need a smaller driver set. > Yes, we hope that this dfl-pci could be a common module shared by different cards. Some device doesn't have FME, e.g. some VF device with AFU only, some device has FME, but no PR support, and in the future, it's possible to add new modules, or something replacing AFU or FME, so we don't have to select all here. > I think we may add "default FPGA_DFL" for FPGA_DFL_FME, > FPGA_DFL_FME_MGR and others to make life easier. It's hard to say it's easier for everybody, e.g. I am a user of N3000, but I have to unselect the PR modules, as they are default Yes as proposed? Maybe it's better to let user select what they want, unless we find something really common needed under DFL framework. Hao
