On 25. 06. 19 17:53, Robert Hancock wrote:
> On 2019-06-25 7:01 a.m., Michal Simek wrote:
>> On 21. 06. 19 18:10, Robert Hancock wrote:
>>> On 2019-06-21 12:19 a.m., Michal Simek wrote:
>>>>> If it helps, here is part of our board file that does the FPGA GPIO and
>>>>> SPI initialization and initializes the FPGA callbacks. We are using an
>>>>> ITB image that has the FPGA .bit file as one of the entries and which
>>>>> gets loaded as part of the bootm command.
>>>>
>>>> thanks for this.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> static struct gpio_desc fpga_done;
>>>>> static struct gpio_desc fpga_prog;
>>>>> static struct gpio_desc fpga_init_in;
>>>>>
>>>>> static struct spi_slave *fpga_slave;
>>>>>
>>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>> /*
>>>>> * Initialize before download
>>>>> */
>>>>> static int fpga_pre_fn(int cookie)
>>>>> {
>>>>> /* Initialize GPIO pins */
>>>>> dm_gpio_set_dir_flags(&fpga_prog, GPIOD_IS_OUT);
>>>>> dm_gpio_set_value(&fpga_prog, 1);
>>>>>
>>>>> return cookie;
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> /*
>>>>> * Set the FPGA's active-low program line to the specified level
>>>>> */
>>>>> static int fpga_pgm_fn(int assert, int flush, int cookie)
>>>>> {
>>>>> dm_gpio_set_value(&fpga_prog, !assert);
>>>>> return assert;
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> /*
>>>>> * Test the state of the active-low FPGA INIT line. Return 1 on INIT
>>>>> * asserted (low).
>>>>> */
>>>>> static int fpga_init_fn(int cookie)
>>>>> {
>>>>> return !dm_gpio_get_value(&fpga_init_in);
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> /*
>>>>> * Test the state of the active-high FPGA DONE pin
>>>>> */
>>>>> static int fpga_done_fn(int cookie)
>>>>> {
>>>>> return dm_gpio_get_value(&fpga_done) ? FPGA_SUCCESS : FPGA_FAIL;
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> static int fpga_wbulkdata_fn(void *buf, size_t len, int flush, int cookie)
>>>>> {
>>>>> int ret = spi_xfer(fpga_slave, len * 8, buf, NULL,
>>>>> SPI_XFER_BEGIN | SPI_XFER_END);
>>>>> if (ret) {
>>>>> printf("Failed to transfer %zu bytes of SPI data: %d\n",
>>>>> len, ret);
>>>>> }
>>>>> return cookie;
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> static int fpga_post_fn(int cookie)
>>>>> {
>>>>> return cookie;
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> static int fpga_abort_fn(int cookie)
>>>>> {
>>>>> return fpga_post_fn(cookie);
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> static int fpga_busy_fn(int cookie)
>>>>> {
>>>>> return 0;
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> static xilinx_virtex2_slave_fns fpga_fns = {
>>>>> .pre = fpga_pre_fn,
>>>>> .pgm = fpga_pgm_fn,
>>>>> .init = fpga_init_fn,
>>>>> .done = fpga_done_fn,
>>>>> .wbulkdata = fpga_wbulkdata_fn,
>>>>> .busy = fpga_busy_fn,
>>>>> .abort = fpga_abort_fn,
>>>>> .post = fpga_post_fn,
>>>>> };
>>>>>
>>>>> static xilinx_desc fpga = {
>>>>> .family = xilinx_virtex2,
>>>>> .iface = slave_serial,
>>>>> .size = 6692572,
>>>>> .iface_fns = &fpga_fns,
>>>>> .cookie = 0,
>>>>> .operations = &virtex2_op,
>>>>> .name = "7k160tffg676"
>>>>
>>>> This doesn't look like virtex2. It looks like kintex-7.
>>>> What do you really have there?
>>>
>>> Correct, it's a Kintex 7 part. The slave serial protocol doesn't appear
>>> to have changed much from Virtex2 onward, so the same driver can be used.
>>>
>>
>> Question here is if we should be really using virtex2 file and not any
>> generic one if this can be used for multiple fpgas.
>> But enabling virtex2 driver for programming kintex7 is weird for sure.
>
> I did note in the Kconfig help text that the driver can be used for a
> bunch of newer FPGA families as well. However we could rename the driver
> to be more generic - I'm just not sure what to call it, since there are
> some older FPGAs like Spartan3 that still have specific support elsewhere.
>
ok. Fair enough. I have applied this series and I think will be good to
take out generic stuff to one file. I don't have any HW for this that's
why I have no way to test this and do closer look.
Anyway if you want to do I am happy to review it or someone else can do it.
Thanks,
Michal
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot
