All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Moritz Fischer <mdf@kernel.org>
To: Richard Gong <richard.gong@linux.intel.com>
Cc: mdf@kernel.org, linux-fpga@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, dinguyen@kernel.org,
	Richard Gong <richard.gong@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv2] fpga: stratix10-soc: remove the pre-set reconfiguration condition
Date: Sun, 31 May 2020 12:49:27 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200531194927.GA1622@epycbox.lan> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1d9b21df-7421-b25e-5139-f297e24d99d4@linux.intel.com>

On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 08:15:15AM -0500, Richard Gong wrote:
> Hi Moritz,
> 
> Sorry for asking.
> 
> When you get chance, can you review my version 2 patch submitted on
> 05/15/20?
> 
> Regards,
> Richard
> 
> On 5/15/20 9:35 AM, richard.gong@linux.intel.com wrote:
> > From: Richard Gong <richard.gong@intel.com>
> > 
> > The reconfiguration mode is pre-set by driver as the full reconfiguration.
> > As a result, user have to change code and recompile the drivers if he or
> > she wants to perform a partial reconfiguration. Removing the pre-set
> > reconfiguration condition so that user can select full or partial
> > reconfiguration via overlay device tree without recompiling the drivers.

Can you help me understand? See comment below, I'm not sure how this
change changes the behavior.
> > 
> > Also add an error message if the configuration request is failure.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Richard Gong <richard.gong@intel.com>
> > ---
> > v2: define and use constant values
> > ---
> >   drivers/fpga/stratix10-soc.c | 9 +++++++--
> >   1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/fpga/stratix10-soc.c b/drivers/fpga/stratix10-soc.c
> > index 44b7c56..4d52a80 100644
> > --- a/drivers/fpga/stratix10-soc.c
> > +++ b/drivers/fpga/stratix10-soc.c
> > @@ -14,9 +14,13 @@
> >   /*
> >    * FPGA programming requires a higher level of privilege (EL3), per the SoC
> >    * design.
> > + * SoC firmware supports full and partial reconfiguration.
Consider:
"The SoC firmware supports full and partial reconfiguration."
> >    */
> >   #define NUM_SVC_BUFS	4
> >   #define SVC_BUF_SIZE	SZ_512K
> > +#define FULL_RECONFIG_FLAG	0
> > +#define PARTIAL_RECONFIG_FLAG	1
> > +
> >   /* Indicates buffer is in use if set */
> >   #define SVC_BUF_LOCK	0
> > @@ -182,12 +186,12 @@ static int s10_ops_write_init(struct fpga_manager *mgr,
> >   	uint i;
> >   	int ret;
> > -	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 = PARTIAL_RECONFIG_FLAG;
> >   	} else {
> >   		dev_dbg(dev, "Requesting full reconfiguration.\n");
> > +		ctype.flags = FULL_RECONFIG_FLAG;
> >   	}
Am I missing something here: Doesn't this do the same as before?

Before:
If info->flags & FPGA_MGR_PARTIAL_RECONFIG -> ctype.flags = 0 |
BIT(COMMAND_RECONFIG_FLAG_PARTIAL) -> 1
and ctype->flags = FULL_RECONFIG -> 0 else.

Now:
If info->flags & FPGA_MGR_PARTIAL_RECONFIG -> ctype.flags = PARTIAL_RECONFIG_FLAG -> 1
ctype->flags = FULL_REECONFIG_FLAG -> 0 else.

Am I missing something here? If I don't set the flag for partial
reconfig I'd end up with full reconfiguration in both cases?
If I do set the flag, I get partial reconfiguration in both cases?

> >   	reinit_completion(&priv->status_return_completion);
> > @@ -210,6 +214,7 @@ static int s10_ops_write_init(struct fpga_manager *mgr,
> >   	ret = 0;
> >   	if (!test_and_clear_bit(SVC_STATUS_OK, &priv->status)) {
> > +		dev_err(dev, "RECONFIG_REQUEST failed\n");
> >   		ret = -ETIMEDOUT;
> >   		goto init_done;
> >   	}
> > 

Thanks,
Moritz

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Moritz Fischer <mdf@kernel.org>
To: Richard Gong <richard.gong@linux.intel.com>
Cc: mdf@kernel.org, linux-fpga@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, dinguyen@kernel.org,
	Richard Gong <richard.gong@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv2] fpga: stratix10-soc: remove the pre-set reconfiguration condition
Date: Sun, 31 May 2020 12:49:29 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200531194927.GA1622@epycbox.lan> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1d9b21df-7421-b25e-5139-f297e24d99d4@linux.intel.com>

On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 08:15:15AM -0500, Richard Gong wrote:
> Hi Moritz,
> 
> Sorry for asking.
> 
> When you get chance, can you review my version 2 patch submitted on
> 05/15/20?
> 
> Regards,
> Richard
> 
> On 5/15/20 9:35 AM, richard.gong@linux.intel.com wrote:
> > From: Richard Gong <richard.gong@intel.com>
> > 
> > The reconfiguration mode is pre-set by driver as the full reconfiguration.
> > As a result, user have to change code and recompile the drivers if he or
> > she wants to perform a partial reconfiguration. Removing the pre-set
> > reconfiguration condition so that user can select full or partial
> > reconfiguration via overlay device tree without recompiling the drivers.

Can you help me understand? See comment below, I'm not sure how this
change changes the behavior.
> > 
> > Also add an error message if the configuration request is failure.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Richard Gong <richard.gong@intel.com>
> > ---
> > v2: define and use constant values
> > ---
> >   drivers/fpga/stratix10-soc.c | 9 +++++++--
> >   1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/fpga/stratix10-soc.c b/drivers/fpga/stratix10-soc.c
> > index 44b7c56..4d52a80 100644
> > --- a/drivers/fpga/stratix10-soc.c
> > +++ b/drivers/fpga/stratix10-soc.c
> > @@ -14,9 +14,13 @@
> >   /*
> >    * FPGA programming requires a higher level of privilege (EL3), per the SoC
> >    * design.
> > + * SoC firmware supports full and partial reconfiguration.
Consider:
"The SoC firmware supports full and partial reconfiguration."
> >    */
> >   #define NUM_SVC_BUFS	4
> >   #define SVC_BUF_SIZE	SZ_512K
> > +#define FULL_RECONFIG_FLAG	0
> > +#define PARTIAL_RECONFIG_FLAG	1
> > +
> >   /* Indicates buffer is in use if set */
> >   #define SVC_BUF_LOCK	0
> > @@ -182,12 +186,12 @@ static int s10_ops_write_init(struct fpga_manager *mgr,
> >   	uint i;
> >   	int ret;
> > -	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 = PARTIAL_RECONFIG_FLAG;
> >   	} else {
> >   		dev_dbg(dev, "Requesting full reconfiguration.\n");
> > +		ctype.flags = FULL_RECONFIG_FLAG;
> >   	}
Am I missing something here: Doesn't this do the same as before?

Before:
If info->flags & FPGA_MGR_PARTIAL_RECONFIG -> ctype.flags = 0 |
BIT(COMMAND_RECONFIG_FLAG_PARTIAL) -> 1
and ctype->flags = FULL_RECONFIG -> 0 else.

Now:
If info->flags & FPGA_MGR_PARTIAL_RECONFIG -> ctype.flags = PARTIAL_RECONFIG_FLAG -> 1
ctype->flags = FULL_REECONFIG_FLAG -> 0 else.

Am I missing something here? If I don't set the flag for partial
reconfig I'd end up with full reconfiguration in both cases?
If I do set the flag, I get partial reconfiguration in both cases?

> >   	reinit_completion(&priv->status_return_completion);
> > @@ -210,6 +214,7 @@ static int s10_ops_write_init(struct fpga_manager *mgr,
> >   	ret = 0;
> >   	if (!test_and_clear_bit(SVC_STATUS_OK, &priv->status)) {
> > +		dev_err(dev, "RECONFIG_REQUEST failed\n");
> >   		ret = -ETIMEDOUT;
> >   		goto init_done;
> >   	}
> > 

Thanks,
Moritz

  parent reply	other threads:[~2020-05-31 19:49 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-05-15 14:35 [PATCHv2] fpga: stratix10-soc: remove the pre-set reconfiguration condition richard.gong
2020-05-29 13:15 ` Richard Gong
2020-05-29 16:18   ` Russ Weight
2020-05-31 19:49   ` Moritz Fischer [this message]
2020-05-31 19:49     ` Moritz Fischer
2020-06-01 14:44     ` Richard Gong

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20200531194927.GA1622@epycbox.lan \
    --to=mdf@kernel.org \
    --cc=dinguyen@kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-fpga@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=richard.gong@intel.com \
    --cc=richard.gong@linux.intel.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.