Re: [PATCH net-next 5/5] arm64: dts: zynqmp: Add ZCU104 based TSN endpoint

From: Michal Simek <michal.simek@xilinx.com>
To: Gerhard Engleder <gerhard@engleder-embedded.com>,
	Michal Simek <michal.simek@xilinx.com>
Cc: Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
	David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>,
	Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>, netdev <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
	<devicetree@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 5/5] arm64: dts: zynqmp: Add ZCU104 based TSN endpoint
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2021 12:58:55 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <839bdf26-6aef-7e05-94b9-78c0d2061bf9@xilinx.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CANr-f5xu=xHn7CGve3=Msd8CEcoDujQzSYSNQ2Zbh7NOvyXFYA@mail.gmail.com>

On 7/28/21 10:19 AM, Gerhard Engleder wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 28, 2021 at 7:10 AM Michal Simek <michal.simek@xilinx.com> wrote:
>> On 7/27/21 10:23 PM, Gerhard Engleder wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jul 27, 2021 at 10:18 PM Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org> wrote:
>>>>> The evaluation platform is based on ZCU104. The difference is not
>>>>> only the FPGA image. Also a FMC extension card with Ethernet PHYs is
>>>>> needed. So also the physical hardware is different.
>>>>
>>>> Okay, that's enough of a reason for another compatible. You'll have to
>>>> update the schema.
>>>
>>> Ok, I will update Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/xilinx.yaml.
>>
>> In past we said that we won't be accepting any FPGA description in
>> u-boot/linux projects. I don't think anything has changed from that time
>> and I don't want to end up in situation that we will have a lot of
>> configurations which none else can try and use.
> 
> I agree that it does not make sense to add configurations that no one else
> can try and use. The goal is that others can easily try out the IP. I want to
> provide the FPGA image to others who are interested. It won't be many of
> course.
> 
>> Also based on your description where you use evaluation board with FMC
>> card it is far from any product and looks like demonstration configuration.
> 
> You are right, it is not product, which is addressed to end users. It is a
> demonstration configuration for developers. Isn't that valid for all evaluation
> boards? As a developer I'm very happy if I can do evaluation and development
> without any vendor tree. I can do that now with the ZCU104. So a big thank
> you from me for your work!
> 
>> You can add the same fragment to dt binding example which should be
>> enough for everybody to understand how your IP should be described.
> 
> This dt binding example is already there.
> 
> So a device tree like this won't be accepted?

You have to share to customers bitstream. Likely also boot.bin with
PS/PL configuration and other files in it. That's why it will be quite
simple to also share them full DT or DT overlay just for your IP in the
same image.

Till now I didn't hear any strong argument why this should be accepted.

Thanks,
Michal