On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 09:09:47AM -0500, Alan Tull wrote: > Add two functions for getting the FPGA bridge from the device > rather than device tree node. This is to enable writing code > that will support using FPGA bridges without device tree. > Rename one old function to make it clear that it is device > tree-ish. This leaves us with 3 functions for getting a bridge: > > * fpga_bridge_get > Get the bridge given the device. > > * fpga_bridges_get_to_list > Given the device, get the bridge and add it to a list. > > * of_fpga_bridges_get_to_list > Renamed from priviously existing fpga_bridges_get_to_list. > Given the device node, get the bridge and add it to a list. >
Hi Alan Thanks a lot for providing this patch set for non device tree support. :) Actually I am reworking the Intel FPGA device drivers based on this patch set, and I find some problems with the existing APIs including fpga bridge and manager. My idea is to create all fpga bridges/regions/manager under the same platform device (FME), it allows FME driver to establish the relationship for the bridges/regions/managers it creates in an easy way. But I found current fpga class API doesn't support this very well. e.g fpga_bridge_get/get_to_list only accept parent device as the input parameter, but it doesn't work if we have multiple bridges (and regions/manager) under the same platform device. fpga_mgr has similar issue, but fpga_region APIs work better, as they accept fpga_region as parameter not the shared parent device. Do you think if having multiple fpga-* under one parent device is in the right direction? If yes, shall we provide some more APIs which accept fpga_bridge (and same for fpga-mgr) as parameter instead of the parent device just like fpga-region? Thanks Hao
