Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 5B51F217DF
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20180320071037.GB31239@hao-dev>
References: <1518513893-4719-1-git-send-email-hao.wu@intel.com>
 <1518513893-4719-24-git-send-email-hao.wu@intel.com> <CANk1AXQpPXhNoPt1Uj=YvbtO+jun7e2Yzvyp+wuR1ZXx6+-i8Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <20180320071037.GB31239@hao-dev>
From:   Alan Tull <atull@kernel.org>
Date:   Tue, 20 Mar 2018 13:17:14 -0500
Message-ID: <CANk1AXRqfiWCDEo31-QGoKdUQ6PCjHH69LkuZdjErgGA-qxbiQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 23/24] fpga: dfl: afu: add user afu sub feature support
To:     Wu Hao <hao.wu@intel.com>
Cc:     Moritz Fischer <mdf@kernel.org>, linux-fpga@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-api@vger.kernel.org, "Kang, Luwei" <luwei.kang@intel.com>,
        "Zhang, Yi Z" <yi.z.zhang@intel.com>,
        Xiao Guangrong <guangrong.xiao@linux.intel.com>,
        Tim Whisonant <tim.whisonant@intel.com>,
        Enno Luebbers <enno.luebbers@intel.com>,
        Shiva Rao <shiva.rao@intel.com>,
        Christopher Rauer <christopher.rauer@intel.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 2:10 AM, Wu Hao <hao.wu@intel.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 03:10:28PM -0500, Alan Tull wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 3:24 AM, Wu Hao <hao.wu@intel.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Hao,
>>
>> > From: Xiao Guangrong <guangrong.xiao@linux.intel.com>
>> >
>> > User Accelerated Function Unit sub feature exposes the MMIO region of
>>
>> Is it 'user accelerated'?  I think it is the Accelerator interface.
>
> Hi Alan,
>
> This is only used to emphasize this is the interface to accelerator
> exposed to user. But looks like this causes some confusions for user
> actually from the description. I agree with you, that I will remove
> this UAFU from this patchset.
>
>>
>> > the AFU. After valid green bitstream (GBS) is programmed and port is
>>
>> Would it make sense to just use "partial bitstream" or "PR bitstream"
>> and "static bitstream" for this patchset?  I don't think that adding
>> this terminology makes things clearer.  In any case when someone else
>> uses this patchset, they may not be using this type of branding in
>> their terminology.
>
> Sure, will update the commit message and also sysfs doc below.

Yes and dfl.txt and the rest of the patchset as well, please.

Alan