On Tue, 2019-02-12 at 10:43 +0100, Marek Vasut wrote:
> 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 confi
> > > g@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 ?
>
So something like that?
...
images {
fpga-periph@1 {
description = "FPGA Periph";
...
type = "fpga_periph";
...
}
fpga-core@2 {
description = "FPGA Core";
...
type = "fpga";
...
}
};
configurations {
default = "config@1"
config@1 {
fpga = "fpga-periph@1"; // periph only
};
config@2 {
fpga = "fpga-periph@1", "fpga-core@2";
};
};
> >
> > Marek, are you OK with this implementation?
> Looks OK to me. Dalon ?
>
> [...]
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot
