Re: [Discuss OpenCPI] Proper Platform Definition

From: Brian Padalino <bpadalino_at_gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Jan 20 09:43:32 -0500

On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 7:52 AM James Kulp <jek_at_parera.com> wrote:

> HI Brian,
>
> Good questions as usual.
> The "slot or no slot" decision should come down to whether there are
> truly alternative hardware subsystems that you need to support.
> Normally that is a true, standards-based slot like FMC, but another
> interesting case is the adrv9361 (not released yet), which has various
> "motherboards" that provide different hardware environments for the
> basic "platform" board.
>

Understandable.


> I think your case, where there are different "soldered/populated"
> configurations of your basic platform, could plausibly use the slot
> paradigm too, since it would allow you to correctly specify the
> different hardware option configurations.
> (although if every device is optional, that can lead to a combinatorial
> explosion of physical configurations).
>

Got it. Thanks. I'll take it into consideration. I appreciate the
pointers.


>
> I'm not sure about the E310 as an example since I do not know whether
> there are ever likely to be alternative "cards" for that physical "slot".
>
> The "tieoff" logic for differential signals not driven when devices are
> not instanced has some issues about differential outputs that will be
> fixed in 1.7.
> Normally unused signals are simply driven to '0', but differential ones
> IIRC are not driven correctly in this case.
>

Right, plus there is no instantiation of the differential buffer.

When it comes to timeframes, do you know when the next releases are
scheduled? I'm working from github on v1.5.1. I've read on the mailing
list regarding 1.6 and 1.7 and moving over to gitlab. Is there a schedule
that can be shared?

Thanks,
Brian


Received on Wed Jan 22 2020 - 14:43:32 CST