Re: [PATCHv1 4/4] fpga: stratix10-soc: entend driver for bitstream authentication

[Moritz Fischer]

On Thu, Nov 12, 2020 at 12:06:43PM -0600, richard.gong@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> From: Richard Gong <richard.gong@xxxxxxxxx>
> 
> Exten FPGA manager driver to support FPGA bitstream authentication on
Nit: Extend
> Intel SocFPGA platforms.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Richard Gong <richard.gong@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>  drivers/fpga/stratix10-soc.c | 5 ++++-
>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/fpga/stratix10-soc.c b/drivers/fpga/stratix10-soc.c
> index 657a70c..8a59365 100644
> --- a/drivers/fpga/stratix10-soc.c
> +++ b/drivers/fpga/stratix10-soc.c
> @@ -185,7 +185,10 @@ static int s10_ops_write_init(struct fpga_manager *mgr,
>  	ctype.flags = 0;
>  	if (info->flags & FPGA_MGR_PARTIAL_RECONFIG) {
>  		dev_dbg(dev, "Requesting partial reconfiguration.\n");
> -		ctype.flags |= BIT(COMMAND_RECONFIG_FLAG_PARTIAL);
> +		ctype.flags |= FPGA_MGR_PARTIAL_RECONFIG;
I think we had this discussion during the original review of the
stratix10-soc driver?

Wasn't the point of using the BIT() to not assume alignment of FPGA_MGR
flags and firmware structure?

The FPGA_MGR_* bits are kernel internal and can therefore change, it
would be unfortunate to end up in a situation where this breaks the FW
interface (assuming firmware uses the value in pass-through which it
looks like is what is happening).

> +	} else if (info->flags & FPGA_MGR_BITSTREM_AUTHENTICATION) {
> +		dev_dbg(dev, "Requesting bitstream authentication.\n");
> +		ctype.flags |= FPGA_MGR_BITSTREM_AUTHENTICATION;
Do you want to change this to BIT(COMMAND_AUTHENTICATE_BITSTREAM) or
something like that?
>  	} else {
>  		dev_dbg(dev, "Requesting full reconfiguration.\n");
>  	}
> -- 
> 2.7.4
> 

Thanks,
Moritz