Hi Moritz,
On 11/15/20 1:19 PM, Moritz Fischer wrote:
On Thu, Nov 12, 2020 at 12:06:43PM -0600, richard.gong@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
From: Richard Gong <richard.gong@xxxxxxxxx>
Exten FPGA manager driver to support FPGA bitstream authentication on
Nit: Extend
Sorry, I will fix that in version 2.
Intel SocFPGA platforms.
Signed-off-by: Richard Gong <richard.gong@xxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/fpga/stratix10-soc.c | 5 ++++-
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/fpga/stratix10-soc.c b/drivers/fpga/stratix10-soc.c
index 657a70c..8a59365 100644
--- a/drivers/fpga/stratix10-soc.c
+++ b/drivers/fpga/stratix10-soc.c
@@ -185,7 +185,10 @@ static int s10_ops_write_init(struct fpga_manager *mgr,
ctype.flags = 0;
if (info->flags & FPGA_MGR_PARTIAL_RECONFIG) {
dev_dbg(dev, "Requesting partial reconfiguration.\n");
- ctype.flags |= BIT(COMMAND_RECONFIG_FLAG_PARTIAL);
+ ctype.flags |= FPGA_MGR_PARTIAL_RECONFIG;
I think we had this discussion during the original review of the
stratix10-soc driver?
Yes, we discussed before.
Wasn't the point of using the BIT() to not assume alignment of FPGA_MGR
flags and firmware structure?
Yes, we should use BIT().
The FPGA_MGR_* bits are kernel internal and can therefore change, it
would be unfortunate to end up in a situation where this breaks the FW
interface (assuming firmware uses the value in pass-through which it
looks like is what is happening).
In that case, I should use the flag defined in stratix10-soc driver driver.
+ } else if (info->flags & FPGA_MGR_BITSTREM_AUTHENTICATION) {
+ dev_dbg(dev, "Requesting bitstream authentication.\n");
+ ctype.flags |= FPGA_MGR_BITSTREM_AUTHENTICATION;
Do you want to change this to BIT(COMMAND_AUTHENTICATE_BITSTREAM) or
something like that?
OK, I will change to BIT(COMMAND_AUTHENTICATE_BITSTREAM).
Regards,
Richard
} else {
dev_dbg(dev, "Requesting full reconfiguration.\n");
}
--
2.7.4
Thanks,
Moritz
