Message-ID: <20180206064706.GB4882@hao-dev>
Date:   Tue, 6 Feb 2018 14:47:06 +0800
From:   Wu Hao <hao.wu@...el.com>
To:     Alan Tull <atull@...nel.org>
Cc:     "Luebbers, Enno" <enno.luebbers@...el.com>,
        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>,
        Tim Whisonant <tim.whisonant@...el.com>,
        Shiva Rao <shiva.rao@...el.com>,
        Christopher Rauer <christopher.rauer@...el.com>,
        Xiao Guangrong <guangrong.xiao@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 14/21] fpga: dfl: add fpga manager platform driver for
 FME

On Mon, Feb 05, 2018 at 10:25:54PM -0600, Alan Tull wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 7:47 PM, Wu Hao <hao.wu@...el.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 05, 2018 at 10:36:45AM -0800, Luebbers, Enno wrote:
> >> Hi Hao,
> >>
> >> On Sun, Feb 04, 2018 at 05:37:06PM +0800, Wu Hao wrote:
> >> > On Fri, Feb 02, 2018 at 04:26:26PM -0800, Luebbers, Enno wrote:
> >> > > Hi Hao, Alan,
> >> > >
> >> > > On Fri, Feb 02, 2018 at 05:42:13PM +0800, Wu Hao wrote:
> >> > > > On Thu, Feb 01, 2018 at 04:00:36PM -0600, Alan Tull wrote:
> >> > > > > On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 12:42 AM, Wu Hao <hao.wu@...el.com> wrote:
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > Hi Hao,
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > A few comments below.   Besides that, looks good.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > > This patch adds fpga manager driver for FPGA Management Engine (FME). It
> >> > > > > > implements fpga_manager_ops for FPGA Partial Reconfiguration function.
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Tim Whisonant <tim.whisonant@...el.com>
> >> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Enno Luebbers <enno.luebbers@...el.com>
> >> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Shiva Rao <shiva.rao@...el.com>
> >> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Christopher Rauer <christopher.rauer@...el.com>
> >> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Kang Luwei <luwei.kang@...el.com>
> >> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Xiao Guangrong <guangrong.xiao@...ux.intel.com>
> >> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Wu Hao <hao.wu@...el.com>
> >> > > > > > ----
> >> > > > > > v3: rename driver to dfl-fpga-fme-mgr
> >> > > > > >     implemented status callback for fpga manager
> >> > > > > >     rebased due to fpga api changes
> >> > > > > > ---
> >> > > > > >  .../ABI/testing/sysfs-platform-fpga-dfl-fme-mgr    |   8 +
> >> > > > > >  drivers/fpga/Kconfig                               |   6 +
> >> > > > > >  drivers/fpga/Makefile                              |   1 +
> >> > > > > >  drivers/fpga/fpga-dfl-fme-mgr.c                    | 318 +++++++++++++++++++++
> >> > > > > >  drivers/fpga/fpga-dfl.h                            |  39 ++-
> >> > > > > >  5 files changed, 371 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >> > > > > >  create mode 100644 Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-platform-fpga-dfl-fme-mgr
> >> > > > > >  create mode 100644 drivers/fpga/fpga-dfl-fme-mgr.c
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-platform-fpga-dfl-fme-mgr b/Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-platform-fpga-dfl-fme-mgr
> >> > > > > > new file mode 100644
> >> > > > > > index 0000000..2d4f917
> >> > > > > > --- /dev/null
> >> > > > > > +++ b/Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-platform-fpga-dfl-fme-mgr
> >> > > > > > @@ -0,0 +1,8 @@
> >> > > > > > +What:          /sys/bus/platform/devices/fpga-dfl-fme-mgr.0/interface_id
> >> > > > > > +Date:          November 2017
> >> > > > > > +KernelVersion:  4.15
> >> > > > > > +Contact:       Wu Hao <hao.wu@...el.com>
> >> > > > > > +Description:   Read-only. It returns interface id of partial reconfiguration
> >> > > > > > +               hardware. Userspace could use this information to check if
> >> > > > > > +               current hardware is compatible with given image before FPGA
> >> > > > > > +               programming.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > I'm a little confused by this.  I can understand that the PR bitstream
> >> > > > > has a dependency on the FPGA's static image, but I don't understand
> >> > > > > the dependency of the bistream on the hardware that is used to program
> >> > > > > the bitstream to the FPGA.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Sorry for the confusion, the interface_id is used to indicate the version of
> >> > > > the hardware for partial reconfiguration (it's part of the static image of
> >> > > > the FPGA device). Will improve the description on this.
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> > > The interface_id expresses the compatibility of the static region with PR
> >> > > bitstreams generated for it. It changes every time a new static region is
> >> > > generated.
> >> > >
> >> > > Would it make more sense to have the interface_id exposed as part of the FME
> >> > > device (which represents the static region)? I'm not sure - it kind of also
> >> > > makes sense here, where you would have all the information in one place (if the
> >> > > interface_id matches, I can use this component to program a bitstream).
> >> >
> >> > Hi Enno
> >> >
> >> > Yes, this interface is under fpga-dfl-fme-mgr.0, and fpga-dfl-fme-mgr.0 is
> >> > under fpga-dfl-fme.0. It's part of the FME device for sure. From another
> >> > point of view, it means if anyone wants to do PR on this Intel FPGA device,
> >> > he needs to find the FME device firstly, and then check if any fpga manager
> >> > created under this FME device, if yes, check the interface_id before PR via
> >> > the FME device node ioctl.
> >>
> >> That sounds good, thank you!
> >>
> >> >
> >> > >
> >> > > Sorry for my limited understanding of the infrastructure - would this same
> >> > > "fpga-dfl-fme-mgr.0" be used for PR if we had multiple PR regions? In that case
> >> > > it would need to expose multiple interface_ids (or we'd have to track both
> >> > > interface IDs and an identifier for the target PR region).
> >> >
> >> > Yes, the fpga manager could be shared with different PR regions.
> >> >
> >> > Sorry, I'm not sure where we need to expose multiple interface_ids and why.
> >>
> >> It's basically a question of how to determine bitstream compatibility - either,
> >> there's a separate interface_id per reconfigurable region, or there is a single
> >> interface_id for the entire device. Both make sense from a certain perspective.
> >>
> >> If there are multiple interface_ids per device (one per region), the driver
> >> would need to expose all of them. If there's only a single one, the driver only
> >> exposes that one ID - compatibility would be determined by looking at both that
> >> single interface_id _and_ the identifier/number of the targeted region.
> >>
> >> I would prefer a separate interface_id per region - it seems more generic and
> >> flexible.
> 
> Hi Enno,
> 
> I agree with this.
> 
> >
> > It's possible to have per region interface_id (or even both per dev interface_id
> > and per region interface_id at the same time), but per FME PR sub feature
> > implementation, it supports multiple PR regions, but only provide one interface
> > id, so at least in this case, it's not per-region information per my
> > understanding. We can consider it later when hardware really supports it. : )
> 
> Hi Hao,
> 
> I understand that in the case of this PR hardware, the region to
> program is selected when the region_id to program is written to a PR
> hardware control register.  For another example, Arria10 has a hard PR
> hardware and the PR bitstream lands in the area of the FPGA for which
> it was compiled.  In that case, for the PR bitstream to be compatible
> with a PR region, the layout of the edge connections also needs to be
> compatible, so compatibility is per-region in that case instead of
> per-PR hardware.

Hi Alan,

Thanks a lot for the explanation. :)

I fully understand the consideration of adding per-region interface_id.

> And besides, as I said yesterday, the hard PR
> hardware would not know what the static region ID is when this
> framework is used with such a device.

Yes, is it possible that hard PR hardware with different versions, requires
different images or different methods for compatibility checking?

> 
> That's why I think making the id per-region may be more future proof,
> even if it may see unnecessary in the case of the original blue bits
> this was written for.

I feel that per-PR hardware interface id is useful in some cases, and maybe
in some cases, both per-PR hardware and per-region interface ids are needed
for its compatibility checking, so shall we leave developers to decide to
implement per-PR hardware or per-region or both interface ids based on their
own hardware implementations? How do you think? :)

Thanks
Hao

> 
> Alan

Powered by blists - more mailing lists