lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2022]   [Aug]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRE: [PATCH v2 1/3] fpga: manager: change status api prototype, don't use older
Date
Hi Yilun,

Please find my response inline.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Xu Yilun <yilun.xu@intel.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2022 2:02 PM
> To: Nava kishore Manne <nava.manne@xilinx.com>
> Cc: michal.simek@xilinx.com; hao.wu@intel.com; trix@redhat.com;
> mdf@kernel.org; gregkh@linuxfoundation.org; ronak.jain@xilinx.com;
> rajan.vaja@xilinx.com; abhyuday.godhasara@xilinx.com;
> piyush.mehta@xilinx.com; harsha.harsha@xilinx.com;
> lakshmi.sai.krishna.potthuri@xilinx.com; linux-arm-
> kernel@lists.infradead.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; linux-
> fpga@vger.kernel.org; git@xilinx.com
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] fpga: manager: change status api prototype,
> don't use older
>
> CAUTION: This message has originated from an External Source. Please use
> proper judgment and caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or
> responding to this email.
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 21, 2022 at 02:58:31PM +0530, Nava kishore Manne wrote:
> > Different vendors have different error sets defined by Hardware.
> > If we always define the new bits when we cannot find an exact 1:1
> > mapping in the core the 64 bits would soon be used out. Also, it's
> > hard to understand the mixture of different error sets.
> >
> > To address these issues updated the status interface to handle the
> > vendor-specific messages in a generic way. With the updated status
> > interface the vendor-specific driver files can independently handle
> > the error messages.
>
> I think we don't have to provide the vendor specific HW errors in a generic
> way, maybe the vendor specific drivers could handle them by its own device
> attributes.
>
> Since the output value set of the interface is specific to each driver, users
> should still interpret them in specific manners. So doesn't see much value for
> a class interface.
>

Agree, vendor specific drivers could handle them by its own device attributes.
If it is the case, can we remove the existing status interface relevant changes from the core?

Regards,
Navakishore

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2022-08-17 13:19    [W:0.063 / U:0.248 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site