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

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Date:   Wed, 28 Jul 2021 10:19:37 +0200
From:   Gerhard Engleder <gerhard@...leder-embedded.com>
To:     Michal Simek <michal.simek@...inx.com>
Cc:     Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, devicetree@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 5/5] arm64: dts: zynqmp: Add ZCU104 based TSN endpoint

On Wed, Jul 28, 2021 at 7:10 AM Michal Simek <michal.simek@...inx.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@...nel.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?

Gerhard