Re: [PATCH v14 5/5] remoteproc: Add initial zynqmp R5 remoteproc driver

From: Michael Auchter <michael.auchter@ni.com>
To: Ben Levinsky <ben.levinsky@xilinx.com>
Cc: punit1.agrawal@toshiba.co.jp, stefanos@xilinx.com,
	michals@xilinx.com, devicetree@vger.kernel.org,
	mathieu.poirier@linaro.org, emooring@xilinx.com,
	linux-remoteproc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	jliang@xilinx.com, robh+dt@kernel.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	Wendy Liang <wendy.liang@xilinx.com>,
	Michal Simek <michal.simek@xilinx.com>,
	Ed Mooring <ed.mooring@xilinx.com>, Jason Wu <j.wu@xilinx.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v14 5/5] remoteproc: Add initial zynqmp R5 remoteproc driver
Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2020 17:11:20 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200917221120.GA15530@xaphan> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200917194341.16272-6-ben.levinsky@xilinx.com>

Hey Ben,

Split mode is still not functional in this patch series (as was the case
with the last few revisions).

Before sending out the next revision, can you _please_ ensure you're
testing all supported configurations?

On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 12:43:41PM -0700, Ben Levinsky wrote:
> +/**
> + * RPU core configuration
> + */
> +static enum rpu_oper_mode rpu_mode;
> +

<.. snip ..>

> +static int zynqmp_r5_remoteproc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> +{
> +	int ret, i = 0;
> +	u32 lockstep_mode;
> +	struct device *dev = &pdev->dev;
> +	struct device_node *nc;
> +
> +	ret = of_property_read_u32(dev->of_node,
> +				   "lockstep-mode",
> +				   &lockstep_mode);
> +	if (ret < 0) {
> +		return ret;
> +	} else if (lockstep_mode != PM_RPU_MODE_LOCKSTEP &&
> +	    lockstep_mode != PM_RPU_MODE_SPLIT) {
> +		dev_err(dev,
> +			"Invalid lockstep-mode %x in %pOF\n",
> +			lockstep_mode, dev->of_node);
> +		return -EINVAL;
> +	}
> +
> +	rpu_mode = lockstep_mode;
> +
> +	dev_dbg(dev, "RPU configuration: %s\n",
> +		lockstep_mode ? "lockstep" : "split");

The binding documents lockstep-mode as:

> +  lockstep-mode:
> +    description:
> +      R5 core configuration (split is 0 or lock-step and 1)
> +    maxItems: 1

(Which needs to be reworded, but it looks like the intent was "split is
0 and lock-step is 1")

However, rpu_oper_mode is defined as:

> +enum rpu_oper_mode {
> +       PM_RPU_MODE_LOCKSTEP = 0,
> +       PM_RPU_MODE_SPLIT = 1,
> +};

so the assignment "rpu_mode = lockstep_mode" is incorrect.

- Michael