[U-Boot] [PATCH v7 1/7] ARM: socfpga: Description on FPGA bitstream type and file name for Arria 10

[Marek Vasut <marex@denx.de>]

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 at 1 {
>>>> 	description = "FPGA Periph";
>>>> 	...
>>>> 	type = "fpga_periph";
>>>> 	...
>>>>   }
>>>>   fpga at 2 {
>>>> 	description = "FPGA Core";
>>>> 	...
>>>> 	type = "fpga" or
>>>> "fpga_core";
>>> I'm good with "fpga".
>>>>
>>>> 	...
>>>>   }
>>>> };
>>>> configurations {
>>>>   default = "config at 1"
>>>>   config at 1 {
>>>>       fpga = "fpga at 1";  // periph only
>>>>   };
>>>>   config at 2 {
>>>>       fpga = "fpga at 1", "fpga at 2";
>>>>   };
>>>> };
>>>>
>>>> with the expectation that the order of fpga at 1 and fpga at 2 in confi
>>>> g at 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 at 1 {
> 	description = "FPGA Periph";
> 	...
> 	type = "fpga_periph";

Do we need a new type for the periph/core distinction ?

> 	...
>   }
>   fpga-core at 2 {
> 	description = "FPGA Core";
> 	...
> 	type = "fpga";
> 	...
>   }
> };
> configurations {
>   default = "config at 1"
>   config at 1 {
>       fpga = "fpga-periph at 1";  // periph only
>   };
>   config at 2 {
>       fpga = "fpga-periph at 1", "fpga-core at 2";
>   };
> };
> 
>>>
>>> Marek, are you OK with this implementation?
>> Looks OK to me. Dalon ?
>>
>> [...]


-- 
Best regards,
Marek Vasut