On 2/12/19 10:35 AM, Chee, Tien Fong wrote:
[...]
>> my preference for the fit image would be
>>
>> ...
>> images {
>> fpga@1 {
>> description = "FPGA Periph";
>> ...
>> type = "fpga_periph";
>> ...
>> }
>> fpga@2 {
>> description = "FPGA Core";
>> ...
>> type = "fpga" or
>> "fpga_core";
> I'm good with "fpga".
>> ...
>> }
>> };
>> configurations {
>> default = "config@1"
>> config@1 {
>> fpga = "fpga@1"; // periph only
>> };
>> config@2 {
>> fpga = "fpga@1", "fpga@2";
>> };
>> };
>>
>> with the expectation that the order of fpga@1 and fpga@2 in config@2
>> is not relevant. the code should find the fpga_periph type and
>> program
>> it first. just my comment, i dont like rellying on the order or
>> name.
> I can add support for above implementation although this adds more
> complexity to the driver.
You can have fpga node and e.g. fpga-name node in the configurations
section to discern which phandle there is the core and which is the
peripheral RBF. Would that work ?
> Marek, are you OK with this implementation?
Looks OK to me. Dalon ?
[...]
--
Best regards,
Marek Vasut
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot
