[U-Boot] [PATCH v7 3/7] ARM: socfpga: Add FPGA drivers for Arria 10 FPGA bitstream loading

Marek Vasut
2019-02-13T12:00:04Z

On 2/13/19 9:22 AM, Chee, Tien Fong wrote:
> On Fri, 2019-02-01 at 09:29 +0100, Marek Vasut wrote:
>> On 2/1/19 5:04 AM, Chee, Tien Fong wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, 2019-01-31 at 15:55 +0100, Marek Vasut wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 1/31/19 3:51 PM, tien.fong.chee at intel.com wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> From: Tien Fong Chee <tien.fong.chee@intel.com>
>>>>>
>>>>> Add FPGA driver to support program FPGA with FPGA bitstream
>>>>> loading
>>>>> from
>>>>> filesystem. The driver are designed based on generic firmware
>>>>> loader
>>>>> framework. The driver can handle FPGA program operation from
>>>>> loading FPGA
>>>>> bitstream in flash to memory and then to program FPGA.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Tien Fong Chee <tien.fong.chee@intel.com>
>>>>>
>>>>> ---
>>>>>
>>>>> changes for v7
>>>>> - Restructure the FPGA driver to support both peripheral
>>>>> bitstream
>>>>> and core
>>>>>   bitstream bundled into FIT image.
>>>>> - Support loadable property for core bitstream. User can set
>>>>> loadable
>>>>>   in DDR for better performance. This loading would be done in
>>>>> one
>>>>> large
>>>>>   chunk instead of chunk by chunk loading with small memory
>>>>> buffer.
>>>>> ---
>>>>>  arch/arm/dts/socfpga_arria10_socdk_sdmmc.dts       |  18 +
>>>>>  .../include/mach/fpga_manager_arria10.h            |  39 +-
>>>>>  drivers/fpga/socfpga_arria10.c                     | 417
>>>>> ++++++++++++++++++++-
>>>>>  3 files changed, 457 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm/dts/socfpga_arria10_socdk_sdmmc.dts
>>>>> b/arch/arm/dts/socfpga_arria10_socdk_sdmmc.dts
>>>>> index 998d811..dc55618 100644
>>>>> --- a/arch/arm/dts/socfpga_arria10_socdk_sdmmc.dts
>>>>> +++ b/arch/arm/dts/socfpga_arria10_socdk_sdmmc.dts
>>>>> @@ -18,6 +18,24 @@
>>>>>  /dts-v1/;
>>>>>  #include "socfpga_arria10_socdk.dtsi"
>>>>>
>>>>> +/ {
>>>>> + chosen {
>>>>> + firmware-loader = &fs_loader0;
>>>> Shouldn't this be <&fs_loader0>; ?
>>>> How did this even pass the DTC ?
>>> So <> is compulsory required for phandle? No error complaint from
>>> DTC.
>> Yes
> I just checked the codes, this &fs_loader0 without <> is valid, because
> this is not a phandle, instead it is a label which will be expanded to
> the node's full path.

Shouldn't it be a phandle ?

--
Best regards,
Marek Vasut