* [PATCH v5 0/2] Add single core R5F IPC for AM62 SoC family
@ 2022-12-27 14:52 Devarsh Thakkar
2022-12-27 14:52 ` [PATCH v5 1/2] dt-bindings: remoteproc: ti: Add new compatible " Devarsh Thakkar
2022-12-27 14:52 ` [PATCH v5 2/2] remoteproc: k3-r5: Use separate compatible string for TI " Devarsh Thakkar
0 siblings, 2 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Devarsh Thakkar @ 2022-12-27 14:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: andersson, devicetree, mathieu.poirier, p.zabel,
linux-remoteproc, robh+dt, linux-kernel, krzysztof.kozlowski+dt,
s-anna
Cc: hnagalla, praneeth, nm, vigneshr, a-bhatia1, j-luthra, devarsht
AM62 SoC family don't have a multicore R5F cluster,
instead they have a single core R5F.
This enables IPC support with single core R5F for AM62
family of SoCs.
Devarsh Thakkar (2):
dt-bindings: remoteproc: ti: Add new compatible for AM62 SoC family
remoteproc: k3-r5: Use separate compatible string for TI AM62 SoC
family
.../bindings/remoteproc/ti,k3-r5f-rproc.yaml | 65 ++++++++++++++-----
drivers/remoteproc/ti_k3_r5_remoteproc.c | 57 ++++++++++++----
2 files changed, 91 insertions(+), 31 deletions(-)
--
2.17.1
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread* [PATCH v5 1/2] dt-bindings: remoteproc: ti: Add new compatible for AM62 SoC family 2022-12-27 14:52 [PATCH v5 0/2] Add single core R5F IPC for AM62 SoC family Devarsh Thakkar @ 2022-12-27 14:52 ` Devarsh Thakkar 2022-12-28 15:03 ` Krzysztof Kozlowski 2022-12-27 14:52 ` [PATCH v5 2/2] remoteproc: k3-r5: Use separate compatible string for TI " Devarsh Thakkar 1 sibling, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread From: Devarsh Thakkar @ 2022-12-27 14:52 UTC (permalink / raw) To: andersson, devicetree, mathieu.poirier, p.zabel, linux-remoteproc, robh+dt, linux-kernel, krzysztof.kozlowski+dt, s-anna Cc: hnagalla, praneeth, nm, vigneshr, a-bhatia1, j-luthra, devarsht AM62 family of devices don't have a R5F cluster, instead they have single core DM R5F. Add new compatible string ti,am62-r5fss to support this scenario. When this new compatible is used don't allow cluster-mode property usage in device-tree as this implies that there is no R5F cluster available and only single R5F core is present. Signed-off-by: Devarsh Thakkar <devarsht@ti.com> --- V2: Avoid acronyms, use "Device Manager" instead of "DM" V3: - Use separate if block for each compatible for ti,cluster-mode property - Rearrange compatibles as per alphabatical order V4: Place each enum in separate line in allOf V5: No change (fixing typo in email address) --- .../bindings/remoteproc/ti,k3-r5f-rproc.yaml | 65 ++++++++++++++----- 1 file changed, 47 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-) diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/remoteproc/ti,k3-r5f-rproc.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/remoteproc/ti,k3-r5f-rproc.yaml index fb9605f0655b..b1602cc42888 100644 --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/remoteproc/ti,k3-r5f-rproc.yaml +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/remoteproc/ti,k3-r5f-rproc.yaml @@ -21,6 +21,9 @@ description: | called "Single-CPU" mode, where only Core0 is used, but with ability to use Core1's TCMs as well. + AM62 SoC family support a single R5F core only which runs Device Manager + firmware and can also be used as a remote processor with IPC communication. + Each Dual-Core R5F sub-system is represented as a single DTS node representing the cluster, with a pair of child DT nodes representing the individual R5F cores. Each node has a number of required or optional @@ -28,16 +31,20 @@ description: | the device management of the remote processor and to communicate with the remote processor. + Since AM62 SoC family only support a single core, there is no cluster-mode + property setting required for it. + properties: $nodename: pattern: "^r5fss(@.*)?" compatible: enum: + - ti,am62-r5fss + - ti,am64-r5fss - ti,am654-r5fss - - ti,j721e-r5fss - ti,j7200-r5fss - - ti,am64-r5fss + - ti,j721e-r5fss - ti,j721s2-r5fss power-domains: @@ -80,7 +87,9 @@ patternProperties: node representing a TI instantiation of the Arm Cortex R5F core. There are some specific integration differences for the IP like the usage of a Region Address Translator (RAT) for translating the larger SoC bus - addresses into a 32-bit address space for the processor. + addresses into a 32-bit address space for the processor. For AM62x, + the R5F Sub-System device node should only define one R5F child node + as it has only one core available. Each R5F core has an associated 64 KB of Tightly-Coupled Memory (TCM) internal memories split between two banks - TCMA and TCMB (further @@ -100,10 +109,11 @@ patternProperties: properties: compatible: enum: + - ti,am62-r5f + - ti,am64-r5f - ti,am654-r5f - - ti,j721e-r5f - ti,j7200-r5f - - ti,am64-r5f + - ti,j721e-r5f - ti,j721s2-r5f reg: @@ -208,19 +218,38 @@ patternProperties: unevaluatedProperties: false -if: - properties: - compatible: - enum: - - ti,am64-r5fss -then: - properties: - ti,cluster-mode: - enum: [0, 2] -else: - properties: - ti,cluster-mode: - enum: [0, 1] +allOf: + - if: + properties: + compatible: + enum: + - ti,am64-r5fss + then: + properties: + ti,cluster-mode: + enum: [0, 2] + + - if: + properties: + compatible: + enum: + - ti,am654-r5fss + - ti,j7200-r5fss + - ti,j721e-r5fss + - ti,j721s2-r5fss + then: + properties: + ti,cluster-mode: + enum: [0, 1] + + - if: + properties: + compatible: + enum: + - ti,am62-r5fss + then: + properties: + ti,cluster-mode: false required: - compatible -- 2.17.1 ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v5 1/2] dt-bindings: remoteproc: ti: Add new compatible for AM62 SoC family 2022-12-27 14:52 ` [PATCH v5 1/2] dt-bindings: remoteproc: ti: Add new compatible " Devarsh Thakkar @ 2022-12-28 15:03 ` Krzysztof Kozlowski 0 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread From: Krzysztof Kozlowski @ 2022-12-28 15:03 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Devarsh Thakkar, andersson, devicetree, mathieu.poirier, p.zabel, linux-remoteproc, robh+dt, linux-kernel, krzysztof.kozlowski+dt, s-anna Cc: hnagalla, praneeth, nm, vigneshr, a-bhatia1, j-luthra On 27/12/2022 15:52, Devarsh Thakkar wrote: > AM62 family of devices don't have a R5F cluster, instead > they have single core DM R5F. > Add new compatible string ti,am62-r5fss to support this scenario. > > When this new compatible is used don't allow cluster-mode > property usage in device-tree as this implies that there > is no R5F cluster available and only single R5F core > is present. > > Signed-off-by: Devarsh Thakkar <devarsht@ti.com> > --- > V2: Avoid acronyms, use "Device Manager" instead of "DM" > V3: > - Use separate if block for each compatible for ti,cluster-mode property > - Rearrange compatibles as per alphabatical order > V4: Place each enum in separate line in allOf > V5: No change (fixing typo in email address) Reviewed-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org> Best regards, Krzysztof ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v5 2/2] remoteproc: k3-r5: Use separate compatible string for TI AM62 SoC family 2022-12-27 14:52 [PATCH v5 0/2] Add single core R5F IPC for AM62 SoC family Devarsh Thakkar 2022-12-27 14:52 ` [PATCH v5 1/2] dt-bindings: remoteproc: ti: Add new compatible " Devarsh Thakkar @ 2022-12-27 14:52 ` Devarsh Thakkar 2023-01-10 18:35 ` Mathieu Poirier 1 sibling, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread From: Devarsh Thakkar @ 2022-12-27 14:52 UTC (permalink / raw) To: andersson, devicetree, mathieu.poirier, p.zabel, linux-remoteproc, robh+dt, linux-kernel, krzysztof.kozlowski+dt, s-anna Cc: hnagalla, praneeth, nm, vigneshr, a-bhatia1, j-luthra, devarsht AM62 and AM62A SoCs use single core R5F which is a new scenario different than the one being used with CLUSTER_MODE_SINGLECPU which is for utilizing a single core from a set of cores available in R5F cluster present in the SoC. To support this single core scenario map it with newly defined CLUSTER_MODE_NONE and use it when compatible is set to ti,am62-r5fss. Signed-off-by: Devarsh Thakkar <devarsht@ti.com> --- V2: Fix indentation and ordering issues as per review comments V3: Change CLUSTER_MODE_NONE value to -1 V4: No change V5: No change (fixing typo in email address) --- drivers/remoteproc/ti_k3_r5_remoteproc.c | 57 ++++++++++++++++++------ 1 file changed, 44 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-) diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/ti_k3_r5_remoteproc.c b/drivers/remoteproc/ti_k3_r5_remoteproc.c index 0481926c6975..127f1f68e592 100644 --- a/drivers/remoteproc/ti_k3_r5_remoteproc.c +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/ti_k3_r5_remoteproc.c @@ -74,9 +74,11 @@ struct k3_r5_mem { * Split mode : AM65x, J721E, J7200 and AM64x SoCs * LockStep mode : AM65x, J721E and J7200 SoCs * Single-CPU mode : AM64x SoCs only + * None : AM62x, AM62A SoCs */ enum cluster_mode { - CLUSTER_MODE_SPLIT = 0, + CLUSTER_MODE_NONE = -1, + CLUSTER_MODE_SPLIT, CLUSTER_MODE_LOCKSTEP, CLUSTER_MODE_SINGLECPU, }; @@ -86,11 +88,13 @@ enum cluster_mode { * @tcm_is_double: flag to denote the larger unified TCMs in certain modes * @tcm_ecc_autoinit: flag to denote the auto-initialization of TCMs for ECC * @single_cpu_mode: flag to denote if SoC/IP supports Single-CPU mode + * @is_single_core: flag to denote if SoC/IP has only single core R5 */ struct k3_r5_soc_data { bool tcm_is_double; bool tcm_ecc_autoinit; bool single_cpu_mode; + bool is_single_core; }; /** @@ -838,7 +842,8 @@ static int k3_r5_rproc_configure(struct k3_r5_rproc *kproc) core0 = list_first_entry(&cluster->cores, struct k3_r5_core, elem); if (cluster->mode == CLUSTER_MODE_LOCKSTEP || - cluster->mode == CLUSTER_MODE_SINGLECPU) { + cluster->mode == CLUSTER_MODE_SINGLECPU || + cluster->mode == CLUSTER_MODE_NONE) { core = core0; } else { core = kproc->core; @@ -853,7 +858,7 @@ static int k3_r5_rproc_configure(struct k3_r5_rproc *kproc) boot_vec, cfg, ctrl, stat); /* check if only Single-CPU mode is supported on applicable SoCs */ - if (cluster->soc_data->single_cpu_mode) { + if (cluster->soc_data->single_cpu_mode || cluster->soc_data->is_single_core) { single_cpu = !!(stat & PROC_BOOT_STATUS_FLAG_R5_SINGLECORE_ONLY); if (single_cpu && cluster->mode == CLUSTER_MODE_SPLIT) { @@ -1074,6 +1079,7 @@ static void k3_r5_adjust_tcm_sizes(struct k3_r5_rproc *kproc) if (cluster->mode == CLUSTER_MODE_LOCKSTEP || cluster->mode == CLUSTER_MODE_SINGLECPU || + cluster->mode == CLUSTER_MODE_NONE || !cluster->soc_data->tcm_is_double) return; @@ -1147,7 +1153,9 @@ static int k3_r5_rproc_configure_mode(struct k3_r5_rproc *kproc) atcm_enable = cfg & PROC_BOOT_CFG_FLAG_R5_ATCM_EN ? 1 : 0; btcm_enable = cfg & PROC_BOOT_CFG_FLAG_R5_BTCM_EN ? 1 : 0; loczrama = cfg & PROC_BOOT_CFG_FLAG_R5_TCM_RSTBASE ? 1 : 0; - if (cluster->soc_data->single_cpu_mode) { + if (cluster->soc_data->is_single_core) { + mode = CLUSTER_MODE_NONE; + } else if (cluster->soc_data->single_cpu_mode) { mode = cfg & PROC_BOOT_CFG_FLAG_R5_SINGLE_CORE ? CLUSTER_MODE_SINGLECPU : CLUSTER_MODE_SPLIT; } else { @@ -1271,7 +1279,8 @@ static int k3_r5_cluster_rproc_init(struct platform_device *pdev) /* create only one rproc in lockstep mode or single-cpu mode */ if (cluster->mode == CLUSTER_MODE_LOCKSTEP || - cluster->mode == CLUSTER_MODE_SINGLECPU) + cluster->mode == CLUSTER_MODE_SINGLECPU || + cluster->mode == CLUSTER_MODE_NONE) break; } @@ -1704,21 +1713,32 @@ static int k3_r5_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) * default to most common efuse configurations - Split-mode on AM64x * and LockStep-mode on all others */ - cluster->mode = data->single_cpu_mode ? + if (!data->is_single_core) + cluster->mode = data->single_cpu_mode ? CLUSTER_MODE_SPLIT : CLUSTER_MODE_LOCKSTEP; + else + cluster->mode = CLUSTER_MODE_NONE; + cluster->soc_data = data; INIT_LIST_HEAD(&cluster->cores); - ret = of_property_read_u32(np, "ti,cluster-mode", &cluster->mode); - if (ret < 0 && ret != -EINVAL) { - dev_err(dev, "invalid format for ti,cluster-mode, ret = %d\n", - ret); - return ret; + if (!data->is_single_core) { + ret = of_property_read_s32(np, "ti,cluster-mode", &cluster->mode); + if (ret < 0 && ret != -EINVAL) { + dev_err(dev, "invalid format for ti,cluster-mode, ret = %d\n", ret); + return ret; + } } num_cores = of_get_available_child_count(np); - if (num_cores != 2) { - dev_err(dev, "MCU cluster requires both R5F cores to be enabled, num_cores = %d\n", + if (num_cores != 2 && !data->is_single_core) { + dev_err(dev, "MCU cluster requires both R5F cores to be enabled but num_cores is set to = %d\n", + num_cores); + return -ENODEV; + } + + if (num_cores != 1 && data->is_single_core) { + dev_err(dev, "SoC supports only single core R5 but num_cores is set to %d\n", num_cores); return -ENODEV; } @@ -1760,18 +1780,28 @@ static const struct k3_r5_soc_data am65_j721e_soc_data = { .tcm_is_double = false, .tcm_ecc_autoinit = false, .single_cpu_mode = false, + .is_single_core = false, }; static const struct k3_r5_soc_data j7200_j721s2_soc_data = { .tcm_is_double = true, .tcm_ecc_autoinit = true, .single_cpu_mode = false, + .is_single_core = false, }; static const struct k3_r5_soc_data am64_soc_data = { .tcm_is_double = true, .tcm_ecc_autoinit = true, .single_cpu_mode = true, + .is_single_core = false, +}; + +static const struct k3_r5_soc_data am62_soc_data = { + .tcm_is_double = false, + .tcm_ecc_autoinit = true, + .single_cpu_mode = false, + .is_single_core = true, }; static const struct of_device_id k3_r5_of_match[] = { @@ -1779,6 +1809,7 @@ static const struct of_device_id k3_r5_of_match[] = { { .compatible = "ti,j721e-r5fss", .data = &am65_j721e_soc_data, }, { .compatible = "ti,j7200-r5fss", .data = &j7200_j721s2_soc_data, }, { .compatible = "ti,am64-r5fss", .data = &am64_soc_data, }, + { .compatible = "ti,am62-r5fss", .data = &am62_soc_data, }, { .compatible = "ti,j721s2-r5fss", .data = &j7200_j721s2_soc_data, }, { /* sentinel */ }, }; -- 2.17.1 ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v5 2/2] remoteproc: k3-r5: Use separate compatible string for TI AM62 SoC family 2022-12-27 14:52 ` [PATCH v5 2/2] remoteproc: k3-r5: Use separate compatible string for TI " Devarsh Thakkar @ 2023-01-10 18:35 ` Mathieu Poirier 2023-01-16 6:28 ` Devarsh Thakkar 0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread From: Mathieu Poirier @ 2023-01-10 18:35 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Devarsh Thakkar Cc: andersson, devicetree, p.zabel, linux-remoteproc, robh+dt, linux-kernel, krzysztof.kozlowski+dt, s-anna, hnagalla, praneeth, nm, vigneshr, a-bhatia1, j-luthra On Tue, Dec 27, 2022 at 08:22:16PM +0530, Devarsh Thakkar wrote: > AM62 and AM62A SoCs use single core R5F which is a new scenario > different than the one being used with CLUSTER_MODE_SINGLECPU > which is for utilizing a single core from a set of cores available > in R5F cluster present in the SoC. > > To support this single core scenario map it with > newly defined CLUSTER_MODE_NONE and use it when > compatible is set to ti,am62-r5fss. > > Signed-off-by: Devarsh Thakkar <devarsht@ti.com> > --- > V2: Fix indentation and ordering issues as per review comments > V3: Change CLUSTER_MODE_NONE value to -1 > V4: No change > V5: No change (fixing typo in email address) > --- > drivers/remoteproc/ti_k3_r5_remoteproc.c | 57 ++++++++++++++++++------ > 1 file changed, 44 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/ti_k3_r5_remoteproc.c b/drivers/remoteproc/ti_k3_r5_remoteproc.c > index 0481926c6975..127f1f68e592 100644 > --- a/drivers/remoteproc/ti_k3_r5_remoteproc.c > +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/ti_k3_r5_remoteproc.c > @@ -74,9 +74,11 @@ struct k3_r5_mem { > * Split mode : AM65x, J721E, J7200 and AM64x SoCs > * LockStep mode : AM65x, J721E and J7200 SoCs > * Single-CPU mode : AM64x SoCs only > + * None : AM62x, AM62A SoCs > */ > enum cluster_mode { > - CLUSTER_MODE_SPLIT = 0, > + CLUSTER_MODE_NONE = -1, s/CLUSTER_MODE_NONE/CLUSTER_MODE_ONECORE And add it after CLUSTER_MODE_SINGLECPU > + CLUSTER_MODE_SPLIT, > CLUSTER_MODE_LOCKSTEP, > CLUSTER_MODE_SINGLECPU, > }; > @@ -86,11 +88,13 @@ enum cluster_mode { > * @tcm_is_double: flag to denote the larger unified TCMs in certain modes > * @tcm_ecc_autoinit: flag to denote the auto-initialization of TCMs for ECC > * @single_cpu_mode: flag to denote if SoC/IP supports Single-CPU mode > + * @is_single_core: flag to denote if SoC/IP has only single core R5 > */ > struct k3_r5_soc_data { > bool tcm_is_double; > bool tcm_ecc_autoinit; > bool single_cpu_mode; > + bool is_single_core; > }; > > /** > @@ -838,7 +842,8 @@ static int k3_r5_rproc_configure(struct k3_r5_rproc *kproc) > > core0 = list_first_entry(&cluster->cores, struct k3_r5_core, elem); > if (cluster->mode == CLUSTER_MODE_LOCKSTEP || > - cluster->mode == CLUSTER_MODE_SINGLECPU) { > + cluster->mode == CLUSTER_MODE_SINGLECPU || > + cluster->mode == CLUSTER_MODE_NONE) { > core = core0; > } else { > core = kproc->core; > @@ -853,7 +858,7 @@ static int k3_r5_rproc_configure(struct k3_r5_rproc *kproc) > boot_vec, cfg, ctrl, stat); > > /* check if only Single-CPU mode is supported on applicable SoCs */ > - if (cluster->soc_data->single_cpu_mode) { > + if (cluster->soc_data->single_cpu_mode || cluster->soc_data->is_single_core) { Everywhere other than k3_r5_probe(), cluster->mode should be used. Otherwise it is wildly confusing and error prone. Please resend this set with an extra preamble patch that fixes this. > single_cpu = > !!(stat & PROC_BOOT_STATUS_FLAG_R5_SINGLECORE_ONLY); > if (single_cpu && cluster->mode == CLUSTER_MODE_SPLIT) { > @@ -1074,6 +1079,7 @@ static void k3_r5_adjust_tcm_sizes(struct k3_r5_rproc *kproc) > > if (cluster->mode == CLUSTER_MODE_LOCKSTEP || > cluster->mode == CLUSTER_MODE_SINGLECPU || > + cluster->mode == CLUSTER_MODE_NONE || > !cluster->soc_data->tcm_is_double) > return; > > @@ -1147,7 +1153,9 @@ static int k3_r5_rproc_configure_mode(struct k3_r5_rproc *kproc) > atcm_enable = cfg & PROC_BOOT_CFG_FLAG_R5_ATCM_EN ? 1 : 0; > btcm_enable = cfg & PROC_BOOT_CFG_FLAG_R5_BTCM_EN ? 1 : 0; > loczrama = cfg & PROC_BOOT_CFG_FLAG_R5_TCM_RSTBASE ? 1 : 0; > - if (cluster->soc_data->single_cpu_mode) { > + if (cluster->soc_data->is_single_core) { > + mode = CLUSTER_MODE_NONE; > + } else if (cluster->soc_data->single_cpu_mode) { > mode = cfg & PROC_BOOT_CFG_FLAG_R5_SINGLE_CORE ? > CLUSTER_MODE_SINGLECPU : CLUSTER_MODE_SPLIT; Same comment as above. > } else { > @@ -1271,7 +1279,8 @@ static int k3_r5_cluster_rproc_init(struct platform_device *pdev) > > /* create only one rproc in lockstep mode or single-cpu mode */ > if (cluster->mode == CLUSTER_MODE_LOCKSTEP || > - cluster->mode == CLUSTER_MODE_SINGLECPU) > + cluster->mode == CLUSTER_MODE_SINGLECPU || > + cluster->mode == CLUSTER_MODE_NONE) > break; > } > > @@ -1704,21 +1713,32 @@ static int k3_r5_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) > * default to most common efuse configurations - Split-mode on AM64x > * and LockStep-mode on all others > */ The above comment needs to be adjusted. Thanks, Mathieu > - cluster->mode = data->single_cpu_mode ? > + if (!data->is_single_core) > + cluster->mode = data->single_cpu_mode ? > CLUSTER_MODE_SPLIT : CLUSTER_MODE_LOCKSTEP; > + else > + cluster->mode = CLUSTER_MODE_NONE; > + > cluster->soc_data = data; > INIT_LIST_HEAD(&cluster->cores); > > - ret = of_property_read_u32(np, "ti,cluster-mode", &cluster->mode); > - if (ret < 0 && ret != -EINVAL) { > - dev_err(dev, "invalid format for ti,cluster-mode, ret = %d\n", > - ret); > - return ret; > + if (!data->is_single_core) { > + ret = of_property_read_s32(np, "ti,cluster-mode", &cluster->mode); > + if (ret < 0 && ret != -EINVAL) { > + dev_err(dev, "invalid format for ti,cluster-mode, ret = %d\n", ret); > + return ret; > + } > } > > num_cores = of_get_available_child_count(np); > - if (num_cores != 2) { > - dev_err(dev, "MCU cluster requires both R5F cores to be enabled, num_cores = %d\n", > + if (num_cores != 2 && !data->is_single_core) { > + dev_err(dev, "MCU cluster requires both R5F cores to be enabled but num_cores is set to = %d\n", > + num_cores); > + return -ENODEV; > + } > + > + if (num_cores != 1 && data->is_single_core) { > + dev_err(dev, "SoC supports only single core R5 but num_cores is set to %d\n", > num_cores); > return -ENODEV; > } > @@ -1760,18 +1780,28 @@ static const struct k3_r5_soc_data am65_j721e_soc_data = { > .tcm_is_double = false, > .tcm_ecc_autoinit = false, > .single_cpu_mode = false, > + .is_single_core = false, > }; > > static const struct k3_r5_soc_data j7200_j721s2_soc_data = { > .tcm_is_double = true, > .tcm_ecc_autoinit = true, > .single_cpu_mode = false, > + .is_single_core = false, > }; > > static const struct k3_r5_soc_data am64_soc_data = { > .tcm_is_double = true, > .tcm_ecc_autoinit = true, > .single_cpu_mode = true, > + .is_single_core = false, > +}; > + > +static const struct k3_r5_soc_data am62_soc_data = { > + .tcm_is_double = false, > + .tcm_ecc_autoinit = true, > + .single_cpu_mode = false, > + .is_single_core = true, > }; > > static const struct of_device_id k3_r5_of_match[] = { > @@ -1779,6 +1809,7 @@ static const struct of_device_id k3_r5_of_match[] = { > { .compatible = "ti,j721e-r5fss", .data = &am65_j721e_soc_data, }, > { .compatible = "ti,j7200-r5fss", .data = &j7200_j721s2_soc_data, }, > { .compatible = "ti,am64-r5fss", .data = &am64_soc_data, }, > + { .compatible = "ti,am62-r5fss", .data = &am62_soc_data, }, > { .compatible = "ti,j721s2-r5fss", .data = &j7200_j721s2_soc_data, }, > { /* sentinel */ }, > }; > -- > 2.17.1 > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v5 2/2] remoteproc: k3-r5: Use separate compatible string for TI AM62 SoC family 2023-01-10 18:35 ` Mathieu Poirier @ 2023-01-16 6:28 ` Devarsh Thakkar 2023-01-16 16:41 ` Mathieu Poirier 0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread From: Devarsh Thakkar @ 2023-01-16 6:28 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Mathieu Poirier Cc: andersson, devicetree, p.zabel, linux-remoteproc, robh+dt, linux-kernel, krzysztof.kozlowski+dt, s-anna, hnagalla, praneeth, nm, vigneshr, a-bhatia1, j-luthra Hi Mathieu, Thanks for the review. On 11/01/23 00:05, Mathieu Poirier wrote: > On Tue, Dec 27, 2022 at 08:22:16PM +0530, Devarsh Thakkar wrote: >> AM62 and AM62A SoCs use single core R5F which is a new scenario >> different than the one being used with CLUSTER_MODE_SINGLECPU >> which is for utilizing a single core from a set of cores available >> in R5F cluster present in the SoC. >> >> To support this single core scenario map it with >> newly defined CLUSTER_MODE_NONE and use it when >> compatible is set to ti,am62-r5fss. >> >> Signed-off-by: Devarsh Thakkar <devarsht@ti.com> >> --- >> V2: Fix indentation and ordering issues as per review comments >> V3: Change CLUSTER_MODE_NONE value to -1 >> V4: No change >> V5: No change (fixing typo in email address) >> --- >> drivers/remoteproc/ti_k3_r5_remoteproc.c | 57 ++++++++++++++++++------ >> 1 file changed, 44 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/ti_k3_r5_remoteproc.c b/drivers/remoteproc/ti_k3_r5_remoteproc.c >> index 0481926c6975..127f1f68e592 100644 >> --- a/drivers/remoteproc/ti_k3_r5_remoteproc.c >> +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/ti_k3_r5_remoteproc.c >> @@ -74,9 +74,11 @@ struct k3_r5_mem { >> * Split mode : AM65x, J721E, J7200 and AM64x SoCs >> * LockStep mode : AM65x, J721E and J7200 SoCs >> * Single-CPU mode : AM64x SoCs only >> + * None : AM62x, AM62A SoCs >> */ >> enum cluster_mode { >> - CLUSTER_MODE_SPLIT = 0, >> + CLUSTER_MODE_NONE = -1, > > s/CLUSTER_MODE_NONE/CLUSTER_MODE_ONECORE > > And add it after CLUSTER_MODE_SINGLECPU Ok, i will then add it in dt-bindings too. > >> + CLUSTER_MODE_SPLIT, >> CLUSTER_MODE_LOCKSTEP, >> CLUSTER_MODE_SINGLECPU, >> }; >> @@ -86,11 +88,13 @@ enum cluster_mode { >> * @tcm_is_double: flag to denote the larger unified TCMs in certain modes >> * @tcm_ecc_autoinit: flag to denote the auto-initialization of TCMs for ECC >> * @single_cpu_mode: flag to denote if SoC/IP supports Single-CPU mode >> + * @is_single_core: flag to denote if SoC/IP has only single core R5 >> */ >> struct k3_r5_soc_data { >> bool tcm_is_double; >> bool tcm_ecc_autoinit; >> bool single_cpu_mode; >> + bool is_single_core; >> }; >> >> /** >> @@ -838,7 +842,8 @@ static int k3_r5_rproc_configure(struct k3_r5_rproc *kproc) >> >> core0 = list_first_entry(&cluster->cores, struct k3_r5_core, elem); >> if (cluster->mode == CLUSTER_MODE_LOCKSTEP || >> - cluster->mode == CLUSTER_MODE_SINGLECPU) { >> + cluster->mode == CLUSTER_MODE_SINGLECPU || >> + cluster->mode == CLUSTER_MODE_NONE) { >> core = core0; >> } else { >> core = kproc->core; >> @@ -853,7 +858,7 @@ static int k3_r5_rproc_configure(struct k3_r5_rproc *kproc) >> boot_vec, cfg, ctrl, stat); >> >> /* check if only Single-CPU mode is supported on applicable SoCs */ >> - if (cluster->soc_data->single_cpu_mode) { >> + if (cluster->soc_data->single_cpu_mode || cluster->soc_data->is_single_core) { > > Everywhere other than k3_r5_probe(), cluster->mode should be used. Otherwise it > is wildly confusing and error prone. Please resend this set with an extra > preamble patch that fixes this. I agree wherever possible we should do that but some places in the code we are overriding and fine-tuning the cluster-mode value based on firmware configs For e.g. here we are overriding the user selected cluster mode from split mode to single cpu mode if firmware says so and SoC supports single cpu mode. > >> single_cpu = >> !!(stat & PROC_BOOT_STATUS_FLAG_R5_SINGLECORE_ONLY); >> if (single_cpu && cluster->mode == CLUSTER_MODE_SPLIT) { >> @@ -1074,6 +1079,7 @@ static void k3_r5_adjust_tcm_sizes(struct k3_r5_rproc *kproc) >> >> if (cluster->mode == CLUSTER_MODE_LOCKSTEP || >> cluster->mode == CLUSTER_MODE_SINGLECPU || >> + cluster->mode == CLUSTER_MODE_NONE || >> !cluster->soc_data->tcm_is_double) >> return; >> >> @@ -1147,7 +1153,9 @@ static int k3_r5_rproc_configure_mode(struct k3_r5_rproc *kproc) >> atcm_enable = cfg & PROC_BOOT_CFG_FLAG_R5_ATCM_EN ? 1 : 0; >> btcm_enable = cfg & PROC_BOOT_CFG_FLAG_R5_BTCM_EN ? 1 : 0; >> loczrama = cfg & PROC_BOOT_CFG_FLAG_R5_TCM_RSTBASE ? 1 : 0; >> - if (cluster->soc_data->single_cpu_mode) { >> + if (cluster->soc_data->is_single_core) { >> + mode = CLUSTER_MODE_NONE; >> + } else if (cluster->soc_data->single_cpu_mode) { >> mode = cfg & PROC_BOOT_CFG_FLAG_R5_SINGLE_CORE ? >> CLUSTER_MODE_SINGLECPU : CLUSTER_MODE_SPLIT; > > Same comment as above. Here also we are overriding user selected cluster mode based on firmware returned config value and soc data. > >> } else { >> @@ -1271,7 +1279,8 @@ static int k3_r5_cluster_rproc_init(struct platform_device *pdev) >> >> /* create only one rproc in lockstep mode or single-cpu mode */ >> if (cluster->mode == CLUSTER_MODE_LOCKSTEP || >> - cluster->mode == CLUSTER_MODE_SINGLECPU) >> + cluster->mode == CLUSTER_MODE_SINGLECPU || >> + cluster->mode == CLUSTER_MODE_NONE) >> break; >> } >> >> @@ -1704,21 +1713,32 @@ static int k3_r5_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) >> * default to most common efuse configurations - Split-mode on AM64x >> * and LockStep-mode on all others >> */ > > The above comment needs to be adjusted. Will do. Regards, Devarsh > > Thanks, > Mathieu > >> - cluster->mode = data->single_cpu_mode ? >> + if (!data->is_single_core) >> + cluster->mode = data->single_cpu_mode ? >> CLUSTER_MODE_SPLIT : CLUSTER_MODE_LOCKSTEP; >> + else >> + cluster->mode = CLUSTER_MODE_NONE; >> + >> cluster->soc_data = data; >> INIT_LIST_HEAD(&cluster->cores); >> >> - ret = of_property_read_u32(np, "ti,cluster-mode", &cluster->mode); >> - if (ret < 0 && ret != -EINVAL) { >> - dev_err(dev, "invalid format for ti,cluster-mode, ret = %d\n", >> - ret); >> - return ret; >> + if (!data->is_single_core) { >> + ret = of_property_read_s32(np, "ti,cluster-mode", &cluster->mode); >> + if (ret < 0 && ret != -EINVAL) { >> + dev_err(dev, "invalid format for ti,cluster-mode, ret = %d\n", ret); >> + return ret; >> + } >> } >> >> num_cores = of_get_available_child_count(np); >> - if (num_cores != 2) { >> - dev_err(dev, "MCU cluster requires both R5F cores to be enabled, num_cores = %d\n", >> + if (num_cores != 2 && !data->is_single_core) { >> + dev_err(dev, "MCU cluster requires both R5F cores to be enabled but num_cores is set to = %d\n", >> + num_cores); >> + return -ENODEV; >> + } >> + >> + if (num_cores != 1 && data->is_single_core) { >> + dev_err(dev, "SoC supports only single core R5 but num_cores is set to %d\n", >> num_cores); >> return -ENODEV; >> } >> @@ -1760,18 +1780,28 @@ static const struct k3_r5_soc_data am65_j721e_soc_data = { >> .tcm_is_double = false, >> .tcm_ecc_autoinit = false, >> .single_cpu_mode = false, >> + .is_single_core = false, >> }; >> >> static const struct k3_r5_soc_data j7200_j721s2_soc_data = { >> .tcm_is_double = true, >> .tcm_ecc_autoinit = true, >> .single_cpu_mode = false, >> + .is_single_core = false, >> }; >> >> static const struct k3_r5_soc_data am64_soc_data = { >> .tcm_is_double = true, >> .tcm_ecc_autoinit = true, >> .single_cpu_mode = true, >> + .is_single_core = false, >> +}; >> + >> +static const struct k3_r5_soc_data am62_soc_data = { >> + .tcm_is_double = false, >> + .tcm_ecc_autoinit = true, >> + .single_cpu_mode = false, >> + .is_single_core = true, >> }; >> >> static const struct of_device_id k3_r5_of_match[] = { >> @@ -1779,6 +1809,7 @@ static const struct of_device_id k3_r5_of_match[] = { >> { .compatible = "ti,j721e-r5fss", .data = &am65_j721e_soc_data, }, >> { .compatible = "ti,j7200-r5fss", .data = &j7200_j721s2_soc_data, }, >> { .compatible = "ti,am64-r5fss", .data = &am64_soc_data, }, >> + { .compatible = "ti,am62-r5fss", .data = &am62_soc_data, }, >> { .compatible = "ti,j721s2-r5fss", .data = &j7200_j721s2_soc_data, }, >> { /* sentinel */ }, >> }; >> -- >> 2.17.1 >> ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v5 2/2] remoteproc: k3-r5: Use separate compatible string for TI AM62 SoC family 2023-01-16 6:28 ` Devarsh Thakkar @ 2023-01-16 16:41 ` Mathieu Poirier 2023-01-17 14:37 ` Devarsh Thakkar 0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread From: Mathieu Poirier @ 2023-01-16 16:41 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Devarsh Thakkar Cc: andersson, devicetree, p.zabel, linux-remoteproc, robh+dt, linux-kernel, krzysztof.kozlowski+dt, s-anna, hnagalla, praneeth, nm, vigneshr, a-bhatia1, j-luthra On Mon, Jan 16, 2023 at 11:58:55AM +0530, Devarsh Thakkar wrote: > Hi Mathieu, > > Thanks for the review. > > On 11/01/23 00:05, Mathieu Poirier wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 27, 2022 at 08:22:16PM +0530, Devarsh Thakkar wrote: > >> AM62 and AM62A SoCs use single core R5F which is a new scenario > >> different than the one being used with CLUSTER_MODE_SINGLECPU > >> which is for utilizing a single core from a set of cores available > >> in R5F cluster present in the SoC. > >> > >> To support this single core scenario map it with > >> newly defined CLUSTER_MODE_NONE and use it when > >> compatible is set to ti,am62-r5fss. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Devarsh Thakkar <devarsht@ti.com> > >> --- > >> V2: Fix indentation and ordering issues as per review comments > >> V3: Change CLUSTER_MODE_NONE value to -1 > >> V4: No change > >> V5: No change (fixing typo in email address) > >> --- > >> drivers/remoteproc/ti_k3_r5_remoteproc.c | 57 ++++++++++++++++++------ > >> 1 file changed, 44 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-) > >> > >> diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/ti_k3_r5_remoteproc.c b/drivers/remoteproc/ti_k3_r5_remoteproc.c > >> index 0481926c6975..127f1f68e592 100644 > >> --- a/drivers/remoteproc/ti_k3_r5_remoteproc.c > >> +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/ti_k3_r5_remoteproc.c > >> @@ -74,9 +74,11 @@ struct k3_r5_mem { > >> * Split mode : AM65x, J721E, J7200 and AM64x SoCs > >> * LockStep mode : AM65x, J721E and J7200 SoCs > >> * Single-CPU mode : AM64x SoCs only > >> + * None : AM62x, AM62A SoCs > >> */ > >> enum cluster_mode { > >> - CLUSTER_MODE_SPLIT = 0, > >> + CLUSTER_MODE_NONE = -1, > > > > s/CLUSTER_MODE_NONE/CLUSTER_MODE_ONECORE > > > > And add it after CLUSTER_MODE_SINGLECPU > Ok, i will then add it in dt-bindings too. > > > >> + CLUSTER_MODE_SPLIT, > >> CLUSTER_MODE_LOCKSTEP, > >> CLUSTER_MODE_SINGLECPU, > >> }; > >> @@ -86,11 +88,13 @@ enum cluster_mode { > >> * @tcm_is_double: flag to denote the larger unified TCMs in certain modes > >> * @tcm_ecc_autoinit: flag to denote the auto-initialization of TCMs for ECC > >> * @single_cpu_mode: flag to denote if SoC/IP supports Single-CPU mode > >> + * @is_single_core: flag to denote if SoC/IP has only single core R5 > >> */ > >> struct k3_r5_soc_data { > >> bool tcm_is_double; > >> bool tcm_ecc_autoinit; > >> bool single_cpu_mode; > >> + bool is_single_core; > >> }; > >> > >> /** > >> @@ -838,7 +842,8 @@ static int k3_r5_rproc_configure(struct k3_r5_rproc *kproc) > >> > >> core0 = list_first_entry(&cluster->cores, struct k3_r5_core, elem); > >> if (cluster->mode == CLUSTER_MODE_LOCKSTEP || > >> - cluster->mode == CLUSTER_MODE_SINGLECPU) { > >> + cluster->mode == CLUSTER_MODE_SINGLECPU || > >> + cluster->mode == CLUSTER_MODE_NONE) { > >> core = core0; > >> } else { > >> core = kproc->core; > >> @@ -853,7 +858,7 @@ static int k3_r5_rproc_configure(struct k3_r5_rproc *kproc) > >> boot_vec, cfg, ctrl, stat); > >> > >> /* check if only Single-CPU mode is supported on applicable SoCs */ > >> - if (cluster->soc_data->single_cpu_mode) { > >> + if (cluster->soc_data->single_cpu_mode || cluster->soc_data->is_single_core) { > > > > Everywhere other than k3_r5_probe(), cluster->mode should be used. Otherwise it > > is wildly confusing and error prone. Please resend this set with an extra > > preamble patch that fixes this. > I agree wherever possible we should do that but some places in the code we are > overriding and fine-tuning the cluster-mode value based on firmware configs > For e.g. here we are overriding the user selected cluster mode from split mode > to single cpu mode if firmware says so and SoC supports single cpu mode. Overriding cluster->mode happens after this and as such, there is no reason why it can't be used in the if() clause. Moreover, reading your V6, this part is completely omitted. Omission? Bug? Feature? > > > >> single_cpu = > >> !!(stat & PROC_BOOT_STATUS_FLAG_R5_SINGLECORE_ONLY); > >> if (single_cpu && cluster->mode == CLUSTER_MODE_SPLIT) { > >> @@ -1074,6 +1079,7 @@ static void k3_r5_adjust_tcm_sizes(struct k3_r5_rproc *kproc) > >> > >> if (cluster->mode == CLUSTER_MODE_LOCKSTEP || > >> cluster->mode == CLUSTER_MODE_SINGLECPU || > >> + cluster->mode == CLUSTER_MODE_NONE || > >> !cluster->soc_data->tcm_is_double) > >> return; > >> > >> @@ -1147,7 +1153,9 @@ static int k3_r5_rproc_configure_mode(struct k3_r5_rproc *kproc) > >> atcm_enable = cfg & PROC_BOOT_CFG_FLAG_R5_ATCM_EN ? 1 : 0; > >> btcm_enable = cfg & PROC_BOOT_CFG_FLAG_R5_BTCM_EN ? 1 : 0; > >> loczrama = cfg & PROC_BOOT_CFG_FLAG_R5_TCM_RSTBASE ? 1 : 0; > >> - if (cluster->soc_data->single_cpu_mode) { > >> + if (cluster->soc_data->is_single_core) { > >> + mode = CLUSTER_MODE_NONE; > >> + } else if (cluster->soc_data->single_cpu_mode) { > >> mode = cfg & PROC_BOOT_CFG_FLAG_R5_SINGLE_CORE ? > >> CLUSTER_MODE_SINGLECPU : CLUSTER_MODE_SPLIT; > > > > Same comment as above. > Here also we are overriding user selected cluster mode based on firmware > returned config value and soc data. Same comment as above. > > > >> } else { > >> @@ -1271,7 +1279,8 @@ static int k3_r5_cluster_rproc_init(struct platform_device *pdev) > >> > >> /* create only one rproc in lockstep mode or single-cpu mode */ > >> if (cluster->mode == CLUSTER_MODE_LOCKSTEP || > >> - cluster->mode == CLUSTER_MODE_SINGLECPU) > >> + cluster->mode == CLUSTER_MODE_SINGLECPU || > >> + cluster->mode == CLUSTER_MODE_NONE) > >> break; > >> } > >> > >> @@ -1704,21 +1713,32 @@ static int k3_r5_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) > >> * default to most common efuse configurations - Split-mode on AM64x > >> * and LockStep-mode on all others > >> */ > > > > The above comment needs to be adjusted. > Will do. > > Regards, > Devarsh > > > > Thanks, > > Mathieu > > > >> - cluster->mode = data->single_cpu_mode ? > >> + if (!data->is_single_core) > >> + cluster->mode = data->single_cpu_mode ? > >> CLUSTER_MODE_SPLIT : CLUSTER_MODE_LOCKSTEP; > >> + else > >> + cluster->mode = CLUSTER_MODE_NONE; > >> + > >> cluster->soc_data = data; > >> INIT_LIST_HEAD(&cluster->cores); > >> > >> - ret = of_property_read_u32(np, "ti,cluster-mode", &cluster->mode); > >> - if (ret < 0 && ret != -EINVAL) { > >> - dev_err(dev, "invalid format for ti,cluster-mode, ret = %d\n", > >> - ret); > >> - return ret; > >> + if (!data->is_single_core) { > >> + ret = of_property_read_s32(np, "ti,cluster-mode", &cluster->mode); > >> + if (ret < 0 && ret != -EINVAL) { > >> + dev_err(dev, "invalid format for ti,cluster-mode, ret = %d\n", ret); > >> + return ret; > >> + } > >> } > >> > >> num_cores = of_get_available_child_count(np); > >> - if (num_cores != 2) { > >> - dev_err(dev, "MCU cluster requires both R5F cores to be enabled, num_cores = %d\n", > >> + if (num_cores != 2 && !data->is_single_core) { > >> + dev_err(dev, "MCU cluster requires both R5F cores to be enabled but num_cores is set to = %d\n", > >> + num_cores); > >> + return -ENODEV; > >> + } > >> + > >> + if (num_cores != 1 && data->is_single_core) { > >> + dev_err(dev, "SoC supports only single core R5 but num_cores is set to %d\n", > >> num_cores); > >> return -ENODEV; > >> } > >> @@ -1760,18 +1780,28 @@ static const struct k3_r5_soc_data am65_j721e_soc_data = { > >> .tcm_is_double = false, > >> .tcm_ecc_autoinit = false, > >> .single_cpu_mode = false, > >> + .is_single_core = false, > >> }; > >> > >> static const struct k3_r5_soc_data j7200_j721s2_soc_data = { > >> .tcm_is_double = true, > >> .tcm_ecc_autoinit = true, > >> .single_cpu_mode = false, > >> + .is_single_core = false, > >> }; > >> > >> static const struct k3_r5_soc_data am64_soc_data = { > >> .tcm_is_double = true, > >> .tcm_ecc_autoinit = true, > >> .single_cpu_mode = true, > >> + .is_single_core = false, > >> +}; > >> + > >> +static const struct k3_r5_soc_data am62_soc_data = { > >> + .tcm_is_double = false, > >> + .tcm_ecc_autoinit = true, > >> + .single_cpu_mode = false, > >> + .is_single_core = true, > >> }; > >> > >> static const struct of_device_id k3_r5_of_match[] = { > >> @@ -1779,6 +1809,7 @@ static const struct of_device_id k3_r5_of_match[] = { > >> { .compatible = "ti,j721e-r5fss", .data = &am65_j721e_soc_data, }, > >> { .compatible = "ti,j7200-r5fss", .data = &j7200_j721s2_soc_data, }, > >> { .compatible = "ti,am64-r5fss", .data = &am64_soc_data, }, > >> + { .compatible = "ti,am62-r5fss", .data = &am62_soc_data, }, > >> { .compatible = "ti,j721s2-r5fss", .data = &j7200_j721s2_soc_data, }, > >> { /* sentinel */ }, > >> }; > >> -- > >> 2.17.1 > >> ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v5 2/2] remoteproc: k3-r5: Use separate compatible string for TI AM62 SoC family 2023-01-16 16:41 ` Mathieu Poirier @ 2023-01-17 14:37 ` Devarsh Thakkar 0 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread From: Devarsh Thakkar @ 2023-01-17 14:37 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Mathieu Poirier Cc: andersson, devicetree, p.zabel, linux-remoteproc, robh+dt, linux-kernel, krzysztof.kozlowski+dt, s-anna, hnagalla, praneeth, nm, vigneshr, a-bhatia1, j-luthra Hi Mathieu, On 16/01/23 22:11, Mathieu Poirier wrote: > On Mon, Jan 16, 2023 at 11:58:55AM +0530, Devarsh Thakkar wrote: >> Hi Mathieu, >> >> Thanks for the review. >> >> On 11/01/23 00:05, Mathieu Poirier wrote: >>> On Tue, Dec 27, 2022 at 08:22:16PM +0530, Devarsh Thakkar wrote: >>>> AM62 and AM62A SoCs use single core R5F which is a new scenario >>>> different than the one being used with CLUSTER_MODE_SINGLECPU >>>> which is for utilizing a single core from a set of cores available >>>> in R5F cluster present in the SoC. >>>> >>>> To support this single core scenario map it with >>>> newly defined CLUSTER_MODE_NONE and use it when >>>> compatible is set to ti,am62-r5fss. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Devarsh Thakkar <devarsht@ti.com> >>>> --- >>>> V2: Fix indentation and ordering issues as per review comments >>>> V3: Change CLUSTER_MODE_NONE value to -1 >>>> V4: No change >>>> V5: No change (fixing typo in email address) >>>> --- >>>> drivers/remoteproc/ti_k3_r5_remoteproc.c | 57 ++++++++++++++++++------ >>>> 1 file changed, 44 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/ti_k3_r5_remoteproc.c b/drivers/remoteproc/ti_k3_r5_remoteproc.c >>>> index 0481926c6975..127f1f68e592 100644 >>>> --- a/drivers/remoteproc/ti_k3_r5_remoteproc.c >>>> +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/ti_k3_r5_remoteproc.c >>>> @@ -74,9 +74,11 @@ struct k3_r5_mem { >>>> * Split mode : AM65x, J721E, J7200 and AM64x SoCs >>>> * LockStep mode : AM65x, J721E and J7200 SoCs >>>> * Single-CPU mode : AM64x SoCs only >>>> + * None : AM62x, AM62A SoCs >>>> */ >>>> enum cluster_mode { >>>> - CLUSTER_MODE_SPLIT = 0, >>>> + CLUSTER_MODE_NONE = -1, >>> >>> s/CLUSTER_MODE_NONE/CLUSTER_MODE_ONECORE >>> >>> And add it after CLUSTER_MODE_SINGLECPU >> Ok, i will then add it in dt-bindings too. >>> >>>> + CLUSTER_MODE_SPLIT, >>>> CLUSTER_MODE_LOCKSTEP, >>>> CLUSTER_MODE_SINGLECPU, >>>> }; >>>> @@ -86,11 +88,13 @@ enum cluster_mode { >>>> * @tcm_is_double: flag to denote the larger unified TCMs in certain modes >>>> * @tcm_ecc_autoinit: flag to denote the auto-initialization of TCMs for ECC >>>> * @single_cpu_mode: flag to denote if SoC/IP supports Single-CPU mode >>>> + * @is_single_core: flag to denote if SoC/IP has only single core R5 >>>> */ >>>> struct k3_r5_soc_data { >>>> bool tcm_is_double; >>>> bool tcm_ecc_autoinit; >>>> bool single_cpu_mode; >>>> + bool is_single_core; >>>> }; >>>> >>>> /** >>>> @@ -838,7 +842,8 @@ static int k3_r5_rproc_configure(struct k3_r5_rproc *kproc) >>>> >>>> core0 = list_first_entry(&cluster->cores, struct k3_r5_core, elem); >>>> if (cluster->mode == CLUSTER_MODE_LOCKSTEP || >>>> - cluster->mode == CLUSTER_MODE_SINGLECPU) { >>>> + cluster->mode == CLUSTER_MODE_SINGLECPU || >>>> + cluster->mode == CLUSTER_MODE_NONE) { >>>> core = core0; >>>> } else { >>>> core = kproc->core; >>>> @@ -853,7 +858,7 @@ static int k3_r5_rproc_configure(struct k3_r5_rproc *kproc) >>>> boot_vec, cfg, ctrl, stat); >>>> >>>> /* check if only Single-CPU mode is supported on applicable SoCs */ >>>> - if (cluster->soc_data->single_cpu_mode) { >>>> + if (cluster->soc_data->single_cpu_mode || cluster->soc_data->is_single_core) { >>> >>> Everywhere other than k3_r5_probe(), cluster->mode should be used. Otherwise it >>> is wildly confusing and error prone. Please resend this set with an extra >>> preamble patch that fixes this. >> I agree wherever possible we should do that but some places in the code we are >> overriding and fine-tuning the cluster-mode value based on firmware configs >> For e.g. here we are overriding the user selected cluster mode from split mode >> to single cpu mode if firmware says so and SoC supports single cpu mode. > > Overriding cluster->mode happens after this and as such, there is no reason why > it can't be used in the if() clause. Moreover, reading your V6, this part is > completely omitted. Omission? Bug? Feature? > I omitted this change after re-checking, since it was not required, I was using it to jump to config but it works fine even without this change since anyway the control reaches there as lockstep cluster mode is not set in this scenario. Best Regards Devarsh >>> >>>> single_cpu = >>>> !!(stat & PROC_BOOT_STATUS_FLAG_R5_SINGLECORE_ONLY); >>>> if (single_cpu && cluster->mode == CLUSTER_MODE_SPLIT) { >>>> @@ -1074,6 +1079,7 @@ static void k3_r5_adjust_tcm_sizes(struct k3_r5_rproc *kproc) >>>> >>>> if (cluster->mode == CLUSTER_MODE_LOCKSTEP || >>>> cluster->mode == CLUSTER_MODE_SINGLECPU || >>>> + cluster->mode == CLUSTER_MODE_NONE || >>>> !cluster->soc_data->tcm_is_double) >>>> return; >>>> >>>> @@ -1147,7 +1153,9 @@ static int k3_r5_rproc_configure_mode(struct k3_r5_rproc *kproc) >>>> atcm_enable = cfg & PROC_BOOT_CFG_FLAG_R5_ATCM_EN ? 1 : 0; >>>> btcm_enable = cfg & PROC_BOOT_CFG_FLAG_R5_BTCM_EN ? 1 : 0; >>>> loczrama = cfg & PROC_BOOT_CFG_FLAG_R5_TCM_RSTBASE ? 1 : 0; >>>> - if (cluster->soc_data->single_cpu_mode) { >>>> + if (cluster->soc_data->is_single_core) { >>>> + mode = CLUSTER_MODE_NONE; >>>> + } else if (cluster->soc_data->single_cpu_mode) { >>>> mode = cfg & PROC_BOOT_CFG_FLAG_R5_SINGLE_CORE ? >>>> CLUSTER_MODE_SINGLECPU : CLUSTER_MODE_SPLIT; >>> >>> Same comment as above. >> Here also we are overriding user selected cluster mode based on firmware >> returned config value and soc data. > > Same comment as above. > >>> >>>> } else { >>>> @@ -1271,7 +1279,8 @@ static int k3_r5_cluster_rproc_init(struct platform_device *pdev) >>>> >>>> /* create only one rproc in lockstep mode or single-cpu mode */ >>>> if (cluster->mode == CLUSTER_MODE_LOCKSTEP || >>>> - cluster->mode == CLUSTER_MODE_SINGLECPU) >>>> + cluster->mode == CLUSTER_MODE_SINGLECPU || >>>> + cluster->mode == CLUSTER_MODE_NONE) >>>> break; >>>> } >>>> >>>> @@ -1704,21 +1713,32 @@ static int k3_r5_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) >>>> * default to most common efuse configurations - Split-mode on AM64x >>>> * and LockStep-mode on all others >>>> */ >>> >>> The above comment needs to be adjusted. >> Will do. >> >> Regards, >> Devarsh >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Mathieu >>> >>>> - cluster->mode = data->single_cpu_mode ? >>>> + if (!data->is_single_core) >>>> + cluster->mode = data->single_cpu_mode ? >>>> CLUSTER_MODE_SPLIT : CLUSTER_MODE_LOCKSTEP; >>>> + else >>>> + cluster->mode = CLUSTER_MODE_NONE; >>>> + >>>> cluster->soc_data = data; >>>> INIT_LIST_HEAD(&cluster->cores); >>>> >>>> - ret = of_property_read_u32(np, "ti,cluster-mode", &cluster->mode); >>>> - if (ret < 0 && ret != -EINVAL) { >>>> - dev_err(dev, "invalid format for ti,cluster-mode, ret = %d\n", >>>> - ret); >>>> - return ret; >>>> + if (!data->is_single_core) { >>>> + ret = of_property_read_s32(np, "ti,cluster-mode", &cluster->mode); >>>> + if (ret < 0 && ret != -EINVAL) { >>>> + dev_err(dev, "invalid format for ti,cluster-mode, ret = %d\n", ret); >>>> + return ret; >>>> + } >>>> } >>>> >>>> num_cores = of_get_available_child_count(np); >>>> - if (num_cores != 2) { >>>> - dev_err(dev, "MCU cluster requires both R5F cores to be enabled, num_cores = %d\n", >>>> + if (num_cores != 2 && !data->is_single_core) { >>>> + dev_err(dev, "MCU cluster requires both R5F cores to be enabled but num_cores is set to = %d\n", >>>> + num_cores); >>>> + return -ENODEV; >>>> + } >>>> + >>>> + if (num_cores != 1 && data->is_single_core) { >>>> + dev_err(dev, "SoC supports only single core R5 but num_cores is set to %d\n", >>>> num_cores); >>>> return -ENODEV; >>>> } >>>> @@ -1760,18 +1780,28 @@ static const struct k3_r5_soc_data am65_j721e_soc_data = { >>>> .tcm_is_double = false, >>>> .tcm_ecc_autoinit = false, >>>> .single_cpu_mode = false, >>>> + .is_single_core = false, >>>> }; >>>> >>>> static const struct k3_r5_soc_data j7200_j721s2_soc_data = { >>>> .tcm_is_double = true, >>>> .tcm_ecc_autoinit = true, >>>> .single_cpu_mode = false, >>>> + .is_single_core = false, >>>> }; >>>> >>>> static const struct k3_r5_soc_data am64_soc_data = { >>>> .tcm_is_double = true, >>>> .tcm_ecc_autoinit = true, >>>> .single_cpu_mode = true, >>>> + .is_single_core = false, >>>> +}; >>>> + >>>> +static const struct k3_r5_soc_data am62_soc_data = { >>>> + .tcm_is_double = false, >>>> + .tcm_ecc_autoinit = true, >>>> + .single_cpu_mode = false, >>>> + .is_single_core = true, >>>> }; >>>> >>>> static const struct of_device_id k3_r5_of_match[] = { >>>> @@ -1779,6 +1809,7 @@ static const struct of_device_id k3_r5_of_match[] = { >>>> { .compatible = "ti,j721e-r5fss", .data = &am65_j721e_soc_data, }, >>>> { .compatible = "ti,j7200-r5fss", .data = &j7200_j721s2_soc_data, }, >>>> { .compatible = "ti,am64-r5fss", .data = &am64_soc_data, }, >>>> + { .compatible = "ti,am62-r5fss", .data = &am62_soc_data, }, >>>> { .compatible = "ti,j721s2-r5fss", .data = &j7200_j721s2_soc_data, }, >>>> { /* sentinel */ }, >>>> }; >>>> -- >>>> 2.17.1 >>>> ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2023-01-17 14:37 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 8+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2022-12-27 14:52 [PATCH v5 0/2] Add single core R5F IPC for AM62 SoC family Devarsh Thakkar 2022-12-27 14:52 ` [PATCH v5 1/2] dt-bindings: remoteproc: ti: Add new compatible " Devarsh Thakkar 2022-12-28 15:03 ` Krzysztof Kozlowski 2022-12-27 14:52 ` [PATCH v5 2/2] remoteproc: k3-r5: Use separate compatible string for TI " Devarsh Thakkar 2023-01-10 18:35 ` Mathieu Poirier 2023-01-16 6:28 ` Devarsh Thakkar 2023-01-16 16:41 ` Mathieu Poirier 2023-01-17 14:37 ` Devarsh Thakkar
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.