Hi Greg,
On Monday 07 March 2011 17:16:58 Greg KH wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 07, 2011 at 03:07:36PM +0100, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > On Friday 04 March 2011 18:54:24 Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> > > Em 04-03-2011 14:13, Greg KH escreveu:
> > > > On Fri, Mar 04, 2011 at 04:39:05PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > > >> Today's linux-next merge of the staging tree got a conflict in
> > > >> drivers/staging/Kconfig between commit
> > > >> a1256092a1e87511c977a3d0ef96151cda77e5c9 ("[media] Altera FPGA
> > > >> firmware download module") from the v4l-dvb tree and commit
> > > >> 0867b42113ec4eb8646eb361b15cbcfb741ddf5b ("staging: gma500: Intel
> > > >> GMA500 staging driver") from the staging tree.
> > > >>
> > > >> I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary.
> > > >
> > > > That looks correct.
> > > >
> > > > Mauro, what is this driver and why is it added to the staging tree?
> > >
> > > This driver implements the FPGA programming logic for a firmware
> > > required by a DVB driver, and was proposed initially for 2.6.37
> > > inclusion. During the 2.6.38 development cycle, it suffered several
> > > revisions, based on our input at the media and lkml mailing lists,
> > > where Igor fixed all CodingStyle issues.
> > >
> > > In the last minute, during 2.6.38 merge window, two developers (Laurent
> > > and Ben) [1] complained against adding a driver for loading FPGA
> > > firmware as-is. So, I decided to add it, for now, at staging, to avoid
> > > needing to postpone a long series of patches again just because of
> > > that, especially since a series of DVB-C devices are without support
> > > on Linux without this patch series, and there are very few DVB-C
> > > devices currently supported.
> > >
> > > The Altera driver is compliant with CodingStyle, and, from my side, it
> > > is ok to move it to drivers/others, but it doesn't hurt to give some
> > > time for Ben and Laurent to propose alternative way of implementing
> > > the firmware request logic.
> > >
> > > If nothing happens until 2.6.40 merge window, I think we should go
> > > forward and move it to the proper place.
> >
> > What's the policy regarding firmware loaders in kernelspace vs. userspace
> > ? JTAG is a quite complex protocol, and we already have lots of JTAG
> > libraries in userspace (http://urjtag.org/ seems to be the most popular
> > one). We also have userspace firmware loaders (such as fxload for the
> > Cypress EZ USB microcontrollers). Do we need a kernelspace JTAG
> > implementation ?
> >
> > > [1]
> > > http://www.mail-archive.com/linux-media@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/msg26422.html
>
> If the code is just a "pass-through" to the hardware, I have no
> objection to the driver being in the kernel, if it needs to be in order
> to control the hardware properly.
The code implements a JTAG TAP state machine with a bit-banging algorithm,
including direct parallel port (LPT) access, and a bitcode interpreter for the
files generated by the Altera FPGA proprietary development tools.
--
Regards,
Laurent Pinchart
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-next" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
