Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH v17 0/5] FPGA Image Load (previously Security Manager) | From | Tom Rix <> | Date | Mon, 11 Oct 2021 05:35:03 -0700 |
| |
On 10/10/21 6:41 PM, Xu Yilun wrote: > On Sat, Oct 09, 2021 at 05:11:20AM -0700, Tom Rix wrote: >> On 10/9/21 1:08 AM, Xu Yilun wrote: >>> On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 04:00:20PM -0700, Russ Weight wrote: >>>> The FPGA Image Load framework provides an API to upload image >>>> files to an FPGA device. Image files are self-describing. They could >>>> contain FPGA images, BMC images, Root Entry Hashes, or other device >>>> specific files. It is up to the lower-level device driver and the >>>> target device to authenticate and disposition the file data. >>> I've reconsider the FPGA persistent image update again, and think we >>> may include it in FPGA manager framework. >>> >>> Sorry I raised this topic again when it is already at patch v17, but now >>> I need to consider more seriously than before. >>> >>> We have consensus the FPGA persistent image update is just like a normal >>> firmware update which finally writes the nvmem like flash or eeprom, >>> while the current FPGA manager deals with the active FPGA region update >>> and re-activation. Could we just expand the FPGA manager and let it handle >>> the nvmem update as well? Many FPGA cards have nvmem and downloaders >>> supports updating both FPGA region and nvmem. >>> >>> According to the patchset, the basic workflow of the 2 update types are >>> quite similar, get the data, prepare for the HW, write and complete. >>> They are already implemented in FPGA manager. We've discussed some >>> differences like threading or canceling the update, which are >>> not provided by FPGA manager but they may also nice to have for FPGA >>> region update. An FPGA region update may also last for a long time?? >>> So I think having 2 sets of similar frameworks in FPGA is unnecessary. >>> >>> My quick mind is that we add some flags in struct fpga_mgr & struct >>> fpga_image_info to indicate the HW capability (support FPGA region >>> update or nvmem update or both) of the download engine and the provided >>> image type. Then the low-level driver knows how to download if it >>> supports both image types. >>> >>> An char device could be added for each fpga manager dev, providing the >>> user APIs for nvmem update. We may not use the char dev for FPGA region >>> update cause it changes the system HW devices and needs device hotplug >>> in FPGA region. We'd better leave it to FPGA region class, this is >>> another topic. >>> >>> More discussion is appreciated. >> I also think fpga_mgr could be extended. >> >> In this patchset, >> >> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-fpga/20210625195849.837976-1-trix@redhat.com/ >> >> A second, similar set of write ops was added to fpga_manger_ops, >> >> new bit/flag was added to fpga_image_info >> >> The intent was for dfl to add their specific ops to cover what is done in >> this patchset. > I think we don't have to add 2 ops for reconfig & reimage in framework, > the 2 processes are almost the same. > > Just add the _REIMAGE (or something else, NVMEM?) flag for > fpga_image_info, and low level drivers handle it as they do for other > flags. > > How do you think?
A single set is fine.
A difficult part of is the length of time to do the write. The existing write should be improved to use a worker thread.
Tom
> > Thanks, > Yilun > >> Any other driver would do similar. >> >> Is this close to what you are thinking ? >> >> Tom >> >>> Thanks, >>> Yilun >>>
| |