On Thu, 2018-10-11 at 10:03 +0000, Marek Vasut wrote:
On 10/11/2018 08:21 AM, Ang, Chee Hong wrote:
On Wed, 2018-10-10 at 12:27 +0200, Marek Vasut wrote:
On 10/10/2018 07:30 AM, Ang, Chee Hong wrote:
On Tue, 2018-10-09 at 14:48 +0200, Marek Vasut wrote:
On 10/09/2018 05:03 AM, Ang, Chee Hong wrote:
On Mon, 2018-10-08 at 22:32 +0200, Marek Vasut wrote: > > > > On 10/08/2018 05:10 PM, Ang, Chee Hong wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, 2018-10-08 at 11:57 +0200, Marek Vasut wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 10/08/2018 11:48 AM, chee.hong.ang@intel.com > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: "Ang, Chee Hong" chee.hong.ang@intel.com > > > > > > > > Enable 'fpga' command in u-boot. User will be able > > > > to > > > > use > > > > the > > > > fpga > > > > command to program the FPGA on Stratix10 SoC. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Ang, Chee Hong <chee.hong.ang@intel. > > > > com> > > > > --- > > > > arch/arm/mach-socfpga/misc.c | 29 > > > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > > arch/arm/mach-socfpga/misc_s10.c | 2 ++ > > > > drivers/fpga/altera.c | 6 ++++++ > > > > include/altera.h | 4 ++++ > > > > 4 files changed, 41 insertions(+) > > > > > > > > diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-socfpga/misc.c > > > > b/arch/arm/mach- > > > > socfpga/misc.c > > > > index a4f6d5c..7986b58 100644 > > > > --- a/arch/arm/mach-socfpga/misc.c > > > > +++ b/arch/arm/mach-socfpga/misc.c > > > > @@ -88,6 +88,27 @@ int overwrite_console(void) > > > > #endif > > > > > > > > #ifdef CONFIG_FPGA > > > > +#ifdef CONFIG_FPGA_STRATIX10 > > > > +/* > > > > + * FPGA programming support for SoC FPGA Stratix > > > > 10 > > > > + */ > > > > +static Altera_desc altera_fpga[] = { > > > > + { > > > > + /* Family */ > > > > + Intel_FPGA_Stratix10, > > > > + /* Interface type */ > > > > + secure_device_manager_mailbox, > > > > + /* No limitation as additional > > > > data > > > > will > > > > be > > > > ignored */ > > > > + -1, > > > > + /* No device function table */ > > > > + NULL, > > > > + /* Base interface address > > > > specified in > > > > driver > > > > */ > > > > + NULL, > > > > + /* No cookie implementation */ > > > > + 0 > > > > + }, > > > > +}; > > > > +#else > > > > /* > > > > * FPGA programming support for SoC FPGA Cyclone V > > > > */ > > > > @@ -107,6 +128,7 @@ static Altera_desc > > > > altera_fpga[] = > > > > { > > > > 0 > > > > }, > > > > }; > > > > +#endif > > > > > > > > /* add device descriptor to FPGA device table */ > > > > void socfpga_fpga_add(void) > > > > @@ -116,6 +138,13 @@ void socfpga_fpga_add(void) > > > > for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(altera_fpga); > > > > i++) > > > > fpga_add(fpga_altera, > > > > &altera_fpga[i]); > > > > } > > > > + > > > > +#else > > > > + > > > > +__weak void socfpga_fpga_add(void) > > > > +{ > > > > +} > > > Why is a __weak function defined only in else- > > > statement ? > > > > > > It should be defined always, with a sane default > > > implementation. > > I will remove the empty function in #else-statement and > > define > > the > > default function like this : > > > > /* add device descriptor to FPGA device table */ > > void socfpga_fpga_add(void) > > { > > #ifdef CONFIG_FPGA > > int i; > > fpga_init(); > > for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(altera_fpga); i++) > > fpga_add(fpga_altera, &altera_fpga[i]); > > #endif > > } > > > > Is that OK? > Can't you have __weak empty implementation of > socfpga_fpga_add() > and > implement a version per platform ? Would that work and > make > sense > ? socfpga_fpga_add() as shown above is a generic function for adding FPGA devices to FPGA driver which applies to all our platforms. This is the reason why it is defined in misc.c instead of misc_<platform_name>.c.
It turned out we already have this defined in misc.h: #ifdef CONFIG_FPGA void socfpga_fpga_add(void); #else static inline void socfpga_fpga_add(void) {} #endif
Right, if you had one socfpga_fpga_add() per platform + generic empty one, you could drop that whole thing ^.
Yes. It's being addressed in v3 patch: https://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2018-October/343561.html
So where did the function go in there ? I don't see any __weak anything.
I don't have to add anything in my v3 patchsets to make this work. It's already taken care by arch/arm/mach- socfpga/include/mach/misc.h as shown below:
#ifdef CONFIG_FPGA void socfpga_fpga_add(void); #else static inline void socfpga_fpga_add(void) {} #endif
An empty default socfpga_fpga_add() will be defined if CONFIG_FPGA is not defined.
I was hoping to turn this into __weak function.
Below are the new changes for new patch: Empty weak function in arch/arm/mach-socfpga/misc.c:
/* add device descriptor to FPGA device table */ __weak void socfpga_fpga_add(void) { }
In arch/arm/mach-socfpga/misc_aria10.c and arch/arm/mach- socfpga/misc_gen5.c:
#ifdef CONFIG_FPGA /* * FPGA programming support for SoC FPGA Cyclone V */ static Altera_desc altera_fpga[] = { { /* Family */ Altera_SoCFPGA, /* Interface type */ fast_passive_parallel, /* No limitation as additional data will be ignored */ -1, /* No device function table */ NULL, /* Base interface address specified in driver */ NULL, /* No cookie implementation */ 0 }, };
/* add device descriptor to FPGA device table */ void socfpga_fpga_add(void) { int i; fpga_init(); for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(altera_fpga); i++) fpga_add(fpga_altera, &altera_fpga[i]); } #endif
In arch/arm/mach-socfpga/misc_s10.c:
#ifdef CONFIG_FPGA /* * FPGA programming support for SoC FPGA Stratix 10 */ static Altera_desc altera_fpga[] = { { /* Family */ Intel_FPGA_Stratix10, /* Interface type */ secure_device_manager_mailbox, /* No limitation as additional data will be ignored */ -1, /* No device function table */ NULL, /* Base interface address specified in driver */ NULL, /* No cookie implementation */ 0 }, };
/* add device descriptor to FPGA device table */ void socfpga_fpga_add(void) { int i; fpga_init(); for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(altera_fpga); i++) fpga_add(fpga_altera, &altera_fpga[i]); } #endif
With this new implementation, each platform overrides the 'socfpga_fpga_add' to add its own fpga device. The problem here is since our aria10 and gen5 are adding same fpga device, there will be duplication of code for these 2 platforms. What do you think ? If you are OK with this implementation, I can submit a new patch for review again. Thanks.
> > btw. the best solution would be to fix this proper and > implement > a > DM/DT > based probing of the FPGA, including a proper driver(s) > in > drivers/fpga/ > instead of putting all the crud into arch/arm/mach- > socfpga > ...
What do you think about this ^
I do agree DM/DT is the proper way to implement driver. But right now those FPGA drivers in drivers/fpga need to be at least call fpga_add() to add themselves into FPGA device table so that their callback functions can be invoked correctly when user issue 'fpga load', 'fpga info' at the command prompt. So in other words, all drivers in drivers/fpga rely on drivers/fpga/fpga.c (FPGA core driver) to work.
Well, that should be fixed so that they probe from DT, just like any other driver. I'm not fond of adding stuff to arch/arm/ ...
We already have all our fpga drivers in drivers/fpga : drivers/fpga/stratix10.c (NEW. In this patchset) drivers/fpga/stratixII.c (upstreamed) drivers/fpga/strixv.c (upstreamed) drivers/fpga/cyclon2.c (upstreamed) and others...
We only define the FPGA device structure in arch/arm/mach- socfpga/misc.c and call fpga_add() to add our FPGA device driver into the global FPGA device table then FPGA core driver will handle the FPGA operations by invoking the FPGA driver's callback functions.
Right, which should be moved to drivers too and which should use DT.
So for proper DM/DT implementation, drivers/fpga/fpga.c need to be changed as well because this is the core of the FPGA driver.I think changing the core of the FPGA driver to support DM/DT would make more sense than I only change my FPGA driver to extract info from DTB file into a device structure then specifically call fpga_add() again to add the device structure to the FPGA core driver.
Yes, can you add it to your list once we flesh out this patchset ?
OK.
Thanks
-- Best regards, Marek Vasut