[PATCH v4 1/4] fpga: dfl: reorganize to subdir layout

[Wu, Hao]

> On Wed, Jun 16, 2021 at 01:05:36AM +0000, Wu, Hao wrote:
> > > On 6/15/21 1:08 AM, Wu, Hao wrote:
> > > >> Subject: [PATCH v4 1/4] fpga: dfl: reorganize to subdir layout
> > > >>
> > > >> From: Tom Rix <trix at redhat.com>
> > > >>
> > > >> Follow drivers/net/ethernet/ which has control configs
> > > >> NET_VENDOR_BLA that map to drivers/net/ethernet/bla
> > > >> Since fpgas do not have many vendors, drop the 'VENDOR' and use
> > > >> FPGA_BLA.
> > > > Hi Tom,
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for this patch. : )
> > > >
> > > > DFL is not a vendor, but something can be shared/reused. It's possible that
> > > > other vendors reuse the same concepts and the drivers of DFL. If vendor
> > > > drivers need to be moved inside sub folders, then maybe it's better to
> > > > leave DFL in the parent folder?
> > >
> > > xrt is also not a vendor, more a subdevice framework like dfl.
> > >
> > > I am not sure what you mean by other dfl vendors can you give an example ?
> >
> > It's fine, but the description here is a little confusing on vendor/framework
> > handling. No other vendor so far, but it's possible, DFL can be used in
> > non-intel device, and related drivers can be reused as well. Then a fpga
> > mgr driver depends on DFL, should be put inside dfl folder or new
> > vendor's subfolder?
> >
> > Hao
> >
> 
> I'm somewhat neutral on this. If someone non-intel starts using DFL we could
> also
> move the common parts back ...

That's fine.

> 
> That being said, I'm not super convinced we have to move stuff in the
> first place.

I remember that the first submission of our code is having everything inside a sub
folder, but was suggested that to have everything moved out, this is why we have
dfl files here now. To be honest, I have the similar feeling as you, I didn't see any
strong reason to make this something we must do, but both solutions should be
fine. : )

Thanks
Hao

> 
> - Moritz