From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-12.7 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,NICE_REPLY_A,SIGNED_OFF_BY,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ABD01C433DF for ; Thu, 20 Aug 2020 13:25:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8863820658 for ; Thu, 20 Aug 2020 13:25:37 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=ti.com header.i=@ti.com header.b="Luk7a5dJ" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1730845AbgHTNZ3 (ORCPT ); Thu, 20 Aug 2020 09:25:29 -0400 Received: from lelv0142.ext.ti.com ([198.47.23.249]:50318 "EHLO lelv0142.ext.ti.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1730830AbgHTNZR (ORCPT ); Thu, 20 Aug 2020 09:25:17 -0400 Received: from lelv0266.itg.ti.com ([10.180.67.225]) by lelv0142.ext.ti.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 07KDPCbj060069; Thu, 20 Aug 2020 08:25:12 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ti.com; s=ti-com-17Q1; t=1597929912; bh=y/l56dAGpjnshDm3cxwCsETuPKtCmIdz45bEU/nlU3Y=; h=Subject:To:CC:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=Luk7a5dJiMJPu/WNwCJd94xOsRD4SxChJpgQylGZK0LBl4t3sit0cjYX6qw2eChrL Xm6ZKi05oC0zUxkPdKbi3NqKsMroKjfc1F1PhAtx1AxTEab1itcZIkmaigPzjG+aLK 7Wn9ZTkzDJiTs+n1B+Qe9C/OohCoRLpDijNz4cGQ= Received: from DFLE103.ent.ti.com (dfle103.ent.ti.com [10.64.6.24]) by lelv0266.itg.ti.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 07KDPC4Z023311 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Thu, 20 Aug 2020 08:25:12 -0500 Received: from DFLE108.ent.ti.com (10.64.6.29) by DFLE103.ent.ti.com (10.64.6.24) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.1979.3; Thu, 20 Aug 2020 08:25:12 -0500 Received: from fllv0039.itg.ti.com (10.64.41.19) by DFLE108.ent.ti.com (10.64.6.29) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.1979.3 via Frontend Transport; Thu, 20 Aug 2020 08:25:12 -0500 Received: from [10.250.32.29] (ileax41-snat.itg.ti.com [10.172.224.153]) by fllv0039.itg.ti.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 07KDPCtK095800; Thu, 20 Aug 2020 08:25:12 -0500 Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/7] arm64: dts: ti: k3-j721e-common-proc-board: Add mailboxes to C66x DSPs To: Nishanth Menon CC: Tero Kristo , , References: <20200820010331.2911-1-s-anna@ti.com> <20200820010331.2911-3-s-anna@ti.com> <20200820114238.7ovvxq5n3fogzowi@akan> From: Suman Anna Message-ID: <8491a1bf-3665-8f23-6b75-34890566fcae@ti.com> Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2020 08:25:12 -0500 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.10.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20200820114238.7ovvxq5n3fogzowi@akan> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-EXCLAIMER-MD-CONFIG: e1e8a2fd-e40a-4ac6-ac9b-f7e9cc9ee180 Sender: devicetree-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: devicetree@vger.kernel.org Hi Nishanth, On 8/20/20 6:42 AM, Nishanth Menon wrote: > On 20:03-20200819, Suman Anna wrote: >> Add the required 'mboxes' property to both the C66x DSP processors on the >> TI J721E common processor board. The mailboxes and some shared memory > > I am not sure I understand the logic here. The carveout is added to > p0 SOM - and the mbox is added to common_proc_board. I am not sure I > get the difference. The C66x processors are on the SoC, stack is as > follows: - SoC - SoM - Common Proc board > > I am just wondering if the carveouts and mbox linkage should be in the > common processor board? if that makes sense at all? I know we already > have other definitions.. Trying to see if we are making it harder to > understand the definition than that is necessary.. In general, I consider these as stuff that needs to be added to the board dts files. You will see that this is what I have followed on all the TI AM57xx/DRA7xx boards. For J721E, we have a weird organization as the memory node, typically a board property, is defined in the som dtsi file, so the reserved memory nodes are also added in the som dtsi file. The convention I followed in general is to have the reserved-memory and memory nodes together. If you think the mailbox nodes should be moved into the SoM dts file, I could do it as a follow-on cleanup series, but would wait for the ABI 3.0 changes to be merged first. regards Suman > >> are required for running the Remote Processor Messaging (RPMsg) stack >> between the host processor and each of the R5Fs. The chosen sub-mailboxes >> match the values used in the current firmware images. This can be changed, >> if needed, as per the system integration needs after making appropriate >> changes on the firmware side as well. >> >> Signed-off-by: Suman Anna >> --- >> arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-j721e-common-proc-board.dts | 8 ++++++++ >> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+) >> >> diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-j721e-common-proc-board.dts b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-j721e-common-proc-board.dts >> index e8fc01d97ada..ff541dc09eca 100644 >> --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-j721e-common-proc-board.dts >> +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-j721e-common-proc-board.dts >> @@ -379,6 +379,14 @@ &mailbox0_cluster11 { >> status = "disabled"; >> }; >> >> +&c66_0 { >> + mboxes = <&mailbox0_cluster3 &mbox_c66_0>; >> +}; >> + >> +&c66_1 { >> + mboxes = <&mailbox0_cluster3 &mbox_c66_1>; >> +}; >> + >> &main_sdhci0 { >> /* eMMC */ >> non-removable; >> -- >> 2.28.0 >> > From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-12.6 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_PATCH, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,NICE_REPLY_A,SIGNED_OFF_BY,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 323A1C433E1 for ; Thu, 20 Aug 2020 13:26:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: from merlin.infradead.org (merlin.infradead.org [205.233.59.134]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F3025208A9 for ; Thu, 20 Aug 2020 13:26:34 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=lists.infradead.org header.i=@lists.infradead.org header.b="oP6tW5Of"; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key) header.d=ti.com header.i=@ti.com header.b="Luk7a5dJ" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org F3025208A9 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=ti.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux-arm-kernel-bounces+linux-arm-kernel=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lists.infradead.org; s=merlin.20170209; h=Sender:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-Type:Cc:List-Subscribe:List-Help:List-Post:List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe:List-Id:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Date:Message-ID:From: References:To:Subject:Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date: Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Owner; bh=uLOlMtjvq0eAcwb+1meurGOaIf6cLCuxgdriPLNxqz8=; b=oP6tW5OfAXfIs0Jtkdxfa2akz 73Q/6hW4IC9Cb3aytde1B9KGR2ITXBA+DIrmA12/rotLbf16M7QXwg2H5tWBnfKh/HCdFo0VX1EHY 77uDYJV/9+TtBaBom1vgTrKJjkDbUh7xOpCjImSyBFsX4r5EcvzJ2w/ocojYQa1EJ2cIwhauBpfWT fE70rcHrhEYZrLGa92TKaIoNhlIocKwWlllkqrhYNu6DYBl/GFrPlc9xnfW8NyYSvQZtlf1ObMVRY +0mvlv75btHk2BxpJBGJMft7oLsoqIWykBxGr9o/ZPVozFfVsr04zPMXobY7AVMAWeyODsSB7VI1O rNmYmoYfA==; Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=merlin.infradead.org) by merlin.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92.3 #3 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1k8kZB-000679-Iz; Thu, 20 Aug 2020 13:25:17 +0000 Received: from lelv0142.ext.ti.com ([198.47.23.249]) by merlin.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.92.3 #3 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1k8kZ8-00066V-TN for linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org; Thu, 20 Aug 2020 13:25:15 +0000 Received: from lelv0266.itg.ti.com ([10.180.67.225]) by lelv0142.ext.ti.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 07KDPCbj060069; Thu, 20 Aug 2020 08:25:12 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ti.com; s=ti-com-17Q1; t=1597929912; bh=y/l56dAGpjnshDm3cxwCsETuPKtCmIdz45bEU/nlU3Y=; h=Subject:To:CC:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=Luk7a5dJiMJPu/WNwCJd94xOsRD4SxChJpgQylGZK0LBl4t3sit0cjYX6qw2eChrL Xm6ZKi05oC0zUxkPdKbi3NqKsMroKjfc1F1PhAtx1AxTEab1itcZIkmaigPzjG+aLK 7Wn9ZTkzDJiTs+n1B+Qe9C/OohCoRLpDijNz4cGQ= Received: from DFLE103.ent.ti.com (dfle103.ent.ti.com [10.64.6.24]) by lelv0266.itg.ti.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 07KDPC4Z023311 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Thu, 20 Aug 2020 08:25:12 -0500 Received: from DFLE108.ent.ti.com (10.64.6.29) by DFLE103.ent.ti.com (10.64.6.24) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.1979.3; Thu, 20 Aug 2020 08:25:12 -0500 Received: from fllv0039.itg.ti.com (10.64.41.19) by DFLE108.ent.ti.com (10.64.6.29) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.1979.3 via Frontend Transport; Thu, 20 Aug 2020 08:25:12 -0500 Received: from [10.250.32.29] (ileax41-snat.itg.ti.com [10.172.224.153]) by fllv0039.itg.ti.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 07KDPCtK095800; Thu, 20 Aug 2020 08:25:12 -0500 Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/7] arm64: dts: ti: k3-j721e-common-proc-board: Add mailboxes to C66x DSPs To: Nishanth Menon References: <20200820010331.2911-1-s-anna@ti.com> <20200820010331.2911-3-s-anna@ti.com> <20200820114238.7ovvxq5n3fogzowi@akan> From: Suman Anna Message-ID: <8491a1bf-3665-8f23-6b75-34890566fcae@ti.com> Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2020 08:25:12 -0500 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.10.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20200820114238.7ovvxq5n3fogzowi@akan> Content-Language: en-US X-EXCLAIMER-MD-CONFIG: e1e8a2fd-e40a-4ac6-ac9b-f7e9cc9ee180 X-CRM114-Version: 20100106-BlameMichelson ( TRE 0.8.0 (BSD) ) MR-646709E3 X-CRM114-CacheID: sfid-20200820_092515_099743_3F091C25 X-CRM114-Status: GOOD ( 24.81 ) X-BeenThere: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: Tero Kristo , devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: "linux-arm-kernel" Errors-To: linux-arm-kernel-bounces+linux-arm-kernel=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org Hi Nishanth, On 8/20/20 6:42 AM, Nishanth Menon wrote: > On 20:03-20200819, Suman Anna wrote: >> Add the required 'mboxes' property to both the C66x DSP processors on the >> TI J721E common processor board. The mailboxes and some shared memory > > I am not sure I understand the logic here. The carveout is added to > p0 SOM - and the mbox is added to common_proc_board. I am not sure I > get the difference. The C66x processors are on the SoC, stack is as > follows: - SoC - SoM - Common Proc board > > I am just wondering if the carveouts and mbox linkage should be in the > common processor board? if that makes sense at all? I know we already > have other definitions.. Trying to see if we are making it harder to > understand the definition than that is necessary.. In general, I consider these as stuff that needs to be added to the board dts files. You will see that this is what I have followed on all the TI AM57xx/DRA7xx boards. For J721E, we have a weird organization as the memory node, typically a board property, is defined in the som dtsi file, so the reserved memory nodes are also added in the som dtsi file. The convention I followed in general is to have the reserved-memory and memory nodes together. If you think the mailbox nodes should be moved into the SoM dts file, I could do it as a follow-on cleanup series, but would wait for the ABI 3.0 changes to be merged first. regards Suman > >> are required for running the Remote Processor Messaging (RPMsg) stack >> between the host processor and each of the R5Fs. The chosen sub-mailboxes >> match the values used in the current firmware images. This can be changed, >> if needed, as per the system integration needs after making appropriate >> changes on the firmware side as well. >> >> Signed-off-by: Suman Anna >> --- >> arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-j721e-common-proc-board.dts | 8 ++++++++ >> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+) >> >> diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-j721e-common-proc-board.dts b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-j721e-common-proc-board.dts >> index e8fc01d97ada..ff541dc09eca 100644 >> --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-j721e-common-proc-board.dts >> +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-j721e-common-proc-board.dts >> @@ -379,6 +379,14 @@ &mailbox0_cluster11 { >> status = "disabled"; >> }; >> >> +&c66_0 { >> + mboxes = <&mailbox0_cluster3 &mbox_c66_0>; >> +}; >> + >> +&c66_1 { >> + mboxes = <&mailbox0_cluster3 &mbox_c66_1>; >> +}; >> + >> &main_sdhci0 { >> /* eMMC */ >> non-removable; >> -- >> 2.28.0 >> > _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel