On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 6:16 PM, Moritz Fischer <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 2:42 PM, Alan Tull <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 3:36 PM, Moritz Fischer >> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Jason, >>> >>> On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 1:15 PM, Jason Gunthorpe >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 12:54:27PM -0800, Moritz Fischer wrote: >>>> >>>>> Well I don't know ;-) With something fdt based we already have >>>>> parsers there, >>>> >>>> Not sure.. How does incbin work in DTB? >>>> >>>> We have the FPGA in a s/g list so we cannot pass the entire file to >>>> libfdt - is that consistent with incbin? >>> >>> Well you could attach the (for lack of better word) blob to the beginning, >>> instead of doing incbin >>> >>>> Can we force a specific alignment for the included data? >>> >>> I'd say probably, but haven't checked. >>> >>>> How complex will the userspace tool be to make the image? >>> >>> Userspace can be as complex as it needs to be, imho, if it makes >>> kernel space easier & safer. >>> >>> I'll need to do some more reading over the weekend before I can make >>> more sensible comments :) >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Moritz >> >> Another thought I have about this is that adding the header to >> bitstreams can be a piece of independence from DT for systems that >> aren't already using DT. This includes x86 in Linux. It also >> includes other OS's that aren't using DT, they can reuse the same >> image files without having to add dtc. As much as I like DT, it is >> something I'm having to think about. > > Just to clarify: > I was proposing using the binary format of dts, not actually requiring > devicetree > for it to work. There's plenty of people running u-boot on x86 using FIT > images > to boot.
The FPGA images should not be required to have OS specific parts. Some ahem non-Linux OS's that use FPGAs don't use device tree, so that adds an extra complication for them unnecessarily. > > W.r.t to Jason's script, it's there. Almost any company dealing with > Xilinx FPGAs > will have one of those. We have one, too. I recall having seen another one > made > and shared by Mike @ topic. > > While it's a good starting point ,I *really* don't like the idea > parsing user-land > provided strings in kernel space in a parser that we open-code. Why do you not like about it? Jason posted some very clear practices on how to do that properly and safely. > > Good discussion ;-) Yes, I like it. :) Alan > > Cheers, > Moritz
