[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20131008214221.GB11941@kroah.com>
Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2013 14:42:21 -0700
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Alan Tull <atull@...era.com>
Cc: Michal Simek <monstr@...str.eu>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Jason Gunthorpe <jgunthorpe@...idianresearch.com>,
Pavel Machek <pavel@...x.de>,
Michal Simek <michal.simek@...inx.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Dinh Nguyen <dinguyen@...era.com>,
Philip Balister <philip@...ister.org>,
Alessandro Rubini <rubini@...dd.com>,
Steffen Trumtrar <s.trumtrar@...gutronix.de>,
Jason Cooper <jason@...edaemon.net>,
Yves Vandervennet <rocket.yvanderv@...il.com>,
Kyle Teske <kyle.teske@...com>,
Josh Cartwright <joshc@....teric.us>,
Nicolas Pitre <nico@...aro.org>,
Mark Langsdorf <mark.langsdorf@...xeda.com>,
Felipe Balbi <balbi@...com>, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
Mauro Carvalho Chehab <m.chehab@...sung.com>,
David Brown <davidb@...eaurora.org>,
Rob Landley <rob@...dley.net>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>,
Cesar Eduardo Barros <cesarb@...arb.net>,
Samuel Ortiz <sameo@...ux.intel.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 0/1] FPGA subsystem core
On Tue, Oct 08, 2013 at 11:49:46AM -0500, Alan Tull wrote:
> On Tue, 2013-10-08 at 15:00 +0200, Michal Simek wrote:
> > On 10/07/2013 05:07 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> > > Special soft IP presenting a PCI device to the host.
> >
> > ok. It means that you should need just different backend for this device
> > which is able to communicate over PCI.
> >
> > I still can't see why this case should be problematic for this fpga
> > manager.
> > As Jason pointed if this is just about JTAG emulation and your
> > data is in different format then you have to create your backend
> > which will support this configuration.
> > I will want to look at gpio jtag emulation to be able to program
> > different board. We have this support for u-boot and doing in Linux
> > should be also possible.
> >
> > I think the question is if we can live with 2/3 user interfaces.
> > I tend to keep firmware one because it is covering a lot of common
> > use cases and it can be easily to use.
> > And then I don't have any preference if sysfs or char device
>
> The sysfs and char device interface are equal, except I don't think it
> is right to write binary data to a sysfs attribute.
That's exactly what binary sysfs files are for :)
> The difference between these 3 options is that firmware will work for
> some fixed use cases, but either the sysfs or char interface will work
> for all the use cases.
I don't understand how one will work but the other will not, please
explain.
thanks,
greg k-h
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists