On Tue, 2019-02-12 at 11:17 +0100, Marek Vasut wrote:
On 2/12/19 11:13 AM, Chee, Tien Fong wrote:
On Tue, 2019-02-12 at 10:43 +0100, Marek Vasut wrote:
On 2/12/19 10:35 AM, Chee, Tien Fong wrote: [...]
my preference for the fit image would be
... images { fpga@1 { description = "FPGA Periph"; ... type = "fpga_periph"; ... } fpga@2 { description = "FPGA Core"; ... type = "fpga" or "fpga_core";
I'm good with "fpga".
... } }; configurations { default = "config@1" config@1 { fpga = "fpga@1"; // periph only }; config@2 { fpga = "fpga@1", "fpga@2"; }; };
with the expectation that the order of fpga@1 and fpga@2 in confi g@2 is not relevant. the code should find the fpga_periph type and program it first. just my comment, i dont like rellying on the order or name.
I can add support for above implementation although this adds more complexity to the driver.
You can have fpga node and e.g. fpga-name node in the configurations section to discern which phandle there is the core and which is the peripheral RBF. Would that work ?
So something like that?
...
images { fpga-periph@1 { description = "FPGA Periph"; ... type = "fpga_periph";
Do we need a new type for the periph/core distinction ?
not really, using the node name is fine with me as is shown below. when i suggested that my intent was to allow the name to be independant of the node name still envisioning scenarios where the fit image has multiple fpga images.
... } fpga-core@2 { description = "FPGA Core"; ... type = "fpga"; ... } }; configurations { default = "config@1" config@1 { fpga = "fpga-periph@1"; // periph only }; config@2 { fpga = "fpga-periph@1", "fpga-core@2"; }; };
Marek, are you OK with this implementation?
Looks OK to me. Dalon ?
[...]