linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 23/24] fpga: dfl: afu: add user afu sub feature support

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 21 Mar 2018 11:00:38 +0800
From:   Wu Hao <hao.wu@...el.com>
To:     Alan Tull <atull@...nel.org>
Cc:     Moritz Fischer <mdf@...nel.org>, linux-fpga@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-api@...r.kernel.org, "Kang, Luwei" <luwei.kang@...el.com>,
        "Zhang, Yi Z" <yi.z.zhang@...el.com>,
        Xiao Guangrong <guangrong.xiao@...ux.intel.com>,
        Tim Whisonant <tim.whisonant@...el.com>,
        Enno Luebbers <enno.luebbers@...el.com>,
        Shiva Rao <shiva.rao@...el.com>,
        Christopher Rauer <christopher.rauer@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 23/24] fpga: dfl: afu: add user afu sub feature support

On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 01:17:14PM -0500, Alan Tull wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 2:10 AM, Wu Hao <hao.wu@...el.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 03:10:28PM -0500, Alan Tull wrote:
> >> On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 3:24 AM, Wu Hao <hao.wu@...el.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi Hao,
> >>
> >> > From: Xiao Guangrong <guangrong.xiao@...ux.intel.com>
> >> >
> >> > User Accelerated Function Unit sub feature exposes the MMIO region of
> >>
> >> Is it 'user accelerated'?  I think it is the Accelerator interface.
> >
> > Hi Alan,
> >
> > This is only used to emphasize this is the interface to accelerator
> > exposed to user. But looks like this causes some confusions for user
> > actually from the description. I agree with you, that I will remove
> > this UAFU from this patchset.
> >
> >>
> >> > the AFU. After valid green bitstream (GBS) is programmed and port is
> >>
> >> Would it make sense to just use "partial bitstream" or "PR bitstream"
> >> and "static bitstream" for this patchset?  I don't think that adding
> >> this terminology makes things clearer.  In any case when someone else
> >> uses this patchset, they may not be using this type of branding in
> >> their terminology.
> >
> > Sure, will update the commit message and also sysfs doc below.
> 
> Yes and dfl.txt and the rest of the patchset as well, please.

Sure, I understand that it may have different PR hardwares under this
framework, each PR hardware may have a different terminology for its own
bitstream. We should use common terminology in the common doc and code
to avoid confusion. Thanks for the reminder. I will fix this.

Thanks
Hao

> 
> Alan