On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 11:46:01AM -0600, Alan Tull wrote: > On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 11:21 AM, Jason Gunthorpe > <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 10:14:20AM -0600, Alan Tull wrote: > >> Add a sysfs interface to control programming FPGA. > >> > >> Each fpga-region will get the following files which set values > >> in the fpga_image_info struct for that region. More files will > >> need to be added as fpga_image_info expands. > >> > >> firmware_name > >> * writing a name of a FPGA image file to firmware_name causes the > >> FPGA region to write the FPGA > >> > >> partial_config > >> * 0 : full reconfiguration > >> * 1 : partial reconfiguration > > > > This is really a property of the bitfile. It would be really nice to > > have a saner system for describing the bitfiles that doesn't rely on > > so much out of band stuff.
Agreed. > > > > Eg when doing partial reconfiguration it would be really sane to have > > some checks that the full bitfile is the correct basis for the partial > > bitfile. > > > > It also seems link Zynq needs an encrypted/not encrypted flag.. Well, we could also run always at half rate and not benefit from faster config for the non-encrypted case ;-) > > I wonder if we should require a Linux specific header on the bitfile > > instead? That would make the bitfile self describing at least. > I agree. I've heard some discussions about adding a header. We would > want it to not be manufacturer or fpga device specific. That would be > nice and would eliminate some of this struct. We would need a tool to > add the header, given a bitstream and some info about the bitstream. > If the tool communicated seamlessly with vendor's tools that would be > nice, but that is complicated to get that to happen. So far nobody > has posted their proposals to the mailing list. Well, there's not that many vendors out there. If we can figure out a format and stick to it, keep it reasonably extensible, 'the vendors' will eventually adopt it. Cheers, Moritz
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
