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;
Date:   Wed, 3 Apr 2019 13:08:00 -0700
From:   Moritz Fischer <mdf@kernel.org>
To:     Alan Tull <atull@kernel.org>
Cc:     Moritz Fischer <mdf@kernel.org>,
        Richard Gong <richard.gong@linux.intel.com>,
        linux-fpga@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Richard Gong <richard.gong@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv1] fpga: mgr: add FPGA configuration log
Message-ID: <20190403200800.GE5752@archbook>
References: <1554243943-25507-1-git-send-email-richard.gong@linux.intel.com>
 <20190403142022.GB5752@archbook>
 <ee94981a-6562-9d26-ddc2-967596589599@linux.intel.com>
 <20190403164742.GC5752@archbook>
 <CANk1AXSoF3bhiO=t-XJRLhBH20emWYaZ+2LCPtqJsKyh4b+9KQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CANk1AXSJ31Q7X3J6NOsqVkQoJkjJz=xka0XiWvuYC36s1HiBuA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CANk1AXSJ31Q7X3J6NOsqVkQoJkjJz=xka0XiWvuYC36s1HiBuA@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.11.4 (2019-03-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Apr 03, 2019 at 01:37:51PM -0500, Alan Tull wrote:
> >
> > it's state, not status for most fpga manager drivers.  It should
> > return 'operating' if everything went well.

Yeah, sorry :)

> > It seems like there's a possible scenario where the FPGA starts up
> > with the FPGA in 'operating' mode and the user messes up early enough
> > that the state doesn't change.

Huh, then we should fix that instead? :)
> >
> > >
> > > Personally not in favor of extra messages, but if we do it we should
> > > change the message to "Sucessfully programmed FPGA".
> > >
> > > I think making it a dbg message is a good trade-off ...
> 
> dbg vs info... On the one hand, it is a usually a message the
> developer wants to see so the developer would turn on debug messages.
> But then again FPGA programming doesn't happen that often and it is a
> kind of significant event since it is your hardware changing i.e. it
> won't add a lot messages, but it is sort of an important one if it
> happens.   If the system crashes after a FPGA reprogramming event, it
> would be good to have this in the log by default.  I don't want to
> argue too powerfully for adding extra messages though.  Is this a case
> where info is worth it since fpga programming is significant?

In the current setup, it doesn't happen often. Going forward people
might have use-cases where this happens a lot more often.

I mean if y'all feel like this is required, sure, I still feel people
shouldn't rely on dmesg output for functional verification :)

I don't wanna guarantee that this message is gonna be there always ...

Cheers,
Moritz