lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Dec]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    From
    SubjectRE: [PATCH Xilinx Alveo 0/8] Xilinx Alveo/XRT patch overview
    Date
    Hello Tom,

    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: Tom Rix <trix@redhat.com>
    > Sent: Sunday, December 6, 2020 8:31 AM
    > To: Sonal Santan <sonals@xilinx.com>; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
    > Cc: Sonal Santan <sonals@xilinx.com>; linux-fpga@vger.kernel.org; Max Zhen
    > <maxz@xilinx.com>; Lizhi Hou <lizhih@xilinx.com>; Michal Simek
    > <michals@xilinx.com>; Stefano Stabellini <stefanos@xilinx.com>;
    > devicetree@vger.kernel.org
    > Subject: Re: [PATCH Xilinx Alveo 0/8] Xilinx Alveo/XRT patch overview
    >
    > On 11/28/20 4:00 PM, Sonal Santan wrote:
    > > Hello,
    > >
    > > This patch series adds management physical function driver for Xilinx
    > > Alveo PCIe accelerator cards,
    > > https://www.xilinx.com/products/boards-and-kits/alveo.html
    > > This driver is part of Xilinx Runtime (XRT) open source stack.
    >
    > A few general things.
    >
    > Use scripts/get_maintainer.pl to find who a patch should go to, i should have
    > been on the cc line.
    >
    Will do.
    > Each patch should at a minimum pass scripts/checkpatch.pl, none do.
    >
    Looks like a few files missed our checkpatch process. Will address in the
    upcoming patch series.

    > Looking broadly at the files, there are competing names xrt or alveo.
    >
    > It seems like xrt is the dfl equivalent, so maybe
    >
    > drivers/fpga/alveo should be drivers/fpga/xrt
    >
    Agreed. Will address in the next patch series.
    > There are a lot of files with unnecessary prefixes
    >
    > ex/
    >
    > fpga/alveo/include/xrt-ucs.h could just be fpga/alveo/include/ucs.h
    >
    Would work on separating xrt infrastructure and subdevs header files
    into separate directories and drop the xrt prefix.
    > individual subdev's may not belong in the fpga subsystem.
    >
    > I think it would be better to submit these one at a time as is done for dfl.
    >
    In the upcoming patch revision, will drop the subdevs except bare minimum
    necessary to perform bitstream download.
    > So this will not block getting the basics done, in the next revision, can you leave
    > the subdev's out ?
    >
    >
    Thanks for the feedback.
    -Sonal
    >
    > Because of the checkpatch.pl failures, I will wait for the next revision.
    >
    > Tom
    >

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2020-12-08 22:44    [W:5.230 / U:1.912 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site