Re: [PATCH v14 0/7] fpga area and fpga bridge framework

[Moritz Fischer]

Hi Alan,

On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 3:37 PM,  <atull@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> From: Alan Tull <atull@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> For v14 I'm dropping the concept of "simple-fpga-bus" for "fpga-area"
> with reworked bindings.

I had an offline discussion with Josh Cartwright about his concerns.
He brought up a good
point on w.r.t to the way FPGA Area (Bus) deals with things.

Currently we only support complete status = "okay" vs "disabled" kind
of overlays.

If now you have say a UART in the FPGA that you don't want to go away
and come back on reload,
we don't have a good way of expressing this. Is there a good way to
express non-mmio FPGA devices?

I've been toying around with hacking up struct device to include a
FPGA 'domain', and then, similar
to power domains allow devices to register suspend() / resume() style
callbacks (could call them pre_reload() or something like that ...)

I haven't gotten around to think it through. At this point it's just
an idea and I don't have real code to show.

I realize the issue with that is we'd have to make changes to struct device.

Cheers,

Moritz
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/