All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Suman Anna <s-anna@ti.com>
To: Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@linaro.org>
Cc: Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@linaro.org>,
	Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
	Lokesh Vutla <lokeshvutla@ti.com>,
	<linux-remoteproc@vger.kernel.org>, <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>,
	<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
	<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] remoteproc/k3-dsp: Add a remoteproc driver of K3 C66x DSPs
Date: Wed, 13 May 2020 13:14:16 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <908c1244-b9d8-e9bf-87d7-b60a73e98f18@ti.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200427225737.GB10552@xps15>

Hi Mathieu,

On 4/27/20 5:57 PM, Mathieu Poirier wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 03:18:38PM -0500, Suman Anna wrote:
>> The Texas Instrument's K3 J721E SoCs have two C66x DSP Subsystems in MAIN
>> voltage domain that are based on the TI's standard TMS320C66x DSP CorePac
>> module. Each subsystem has a Fixed/Floating-Point DSP CPU, with 32 KB each
>> of L1P & L1D SRAMs that can be configured and partitioned as either RAM
>> and/or Cache, and 288 KB of L2 SRAM with 256 KB of memory configurable as
>> either RAM and/or Cache. The CorePac also includes an Internal DMA (IDMA),
>> External Memory Controller (EMC), Extended Memory Controller (XMC) with a
>> Region Address Translator (RAT) unit for 32-bit to 48-bit address
>> extension/translations, an Interrupt Controller (INTC) and a Powerdown
>> Controller (PDC).
>>
>> A new remoteproc module is added to perform the device management of
>> these DSP devices. The support is limited to images using only external
>> DDR memory at the moment, the loading support to internal memories and
>> any on-chip RAM memories will be added in a subsequent patch. RAT support
>> is also left for a future patch, and as such the reserved memory carveout
>> regions are all expected to be using memory regions within the first 2 GB.
>> Error Recovery and Power Management features are not currently supported.
>>
>> The C66x remote processors do not have an MMU, and so require fixed memory
>> carveout regions matching the firmware image addresses. Support for this
>> is provided by mandating multiple memory regions to be attached to the
>> remoteproc device. The first memory region will be used to serve as the
>> DMA pool for all dynamic allocations like the vrings and vring buffers.
>> The remaining memory regions are mapped into the kernel at device probe
>> time, and are used to provide address translations for firmware image
>> segments without the need for any RSC_CARVEOUT entries. Any firmware
>> image using memory outside of the supplied reserved memory carveout
>> regions will be errored out.
>>
>> The driver uses various TI-SCI interfaces to talk to the System Controller
>> (DMSC) for managing configuration, power and reset management of these
>> cores. IPC between the A72 cores and the DSP cores is supported through
>> the virtio rpmsg stack using shared memory and OMAP Mailboxes.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Suman Anna <s-anna@ti.com>
>> ---
>>   drivers/remoteproc/Kconfig                |  16 +
>>   drivers/remoteproc/Makefile               |   1 +
>>   drivers/remoteproc/ti_k3_dsp_remoteproc.c | 736 ++++++++++++++++++++++
>>   3 files changed, 753 insertions(+)
>>   create mode 100644 drivers/remoteproc/ti_k3_dsp_remoteproc.c
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/Kconfig b/drivers/remoteproc/Kconfig
>> index 073048b4c0fb..66a76acb15b6 100644
>> --- a/drivers/remoteproc/Kconfig
>> +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/Kconfig
>> @@ -240,6 +240,22 @@ config TI_K3_R5_REMOTEPROC
>>   	  It's safe to say N here if you're not interested in utilizing
>>   	  a slave processor
>>   
>> +config TI_K3_DSP_REMOTEPROC
>> +	tristate "TI K3 DSP remoteproc support"
>> +	depends on ARCH_K3
>> +	select MAILBOX
>> +	select OMAP2PLUS_MBOX
>> +	help
>> +	  Say y here to support TI's C66x and C71x DSP remote processor
>> +	  subsystems on various TI K3 family of SoCs through the remote
>> +	  processor framework.
>> +
>> +	  You want to say m here in order to offload some processing
>> +	  tasks to these processors.
> 
> Building this driver has a module, i.e 'm', has nothing to do with what the
> remote processor does.  I would simply remove the above 2 lines.

Yes, can drop. I will switch the "Say y" to "Say m" - that would be the 
preferred option. Having the driver built-in means the firmware has to 
be part of initramfs.

> 
>> +
>> +	  It's safe to say N here if you're not interested in utilizing
>> +	  the DSP slave processors.
>> +
>>   endif # REMOTEPROC
>>   
>>   endmenu
>> diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/Makefile b/drivers/remoteproc/Makefile
>> index 00ba826818af..eb51cc09e47b 100644
>> --- a/drivers/remoteproc/Makefile
>> +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/Makefile
>> @@ -29,3 +29,4 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_ST_REMOTEPROC)		+= st_remoteproc.o
>>   obj-$(CONFIG_ST_SLIM_REMOTEPROC)	+= st_slim_rproc.o
>>   obj-$(CONFIG_STM32_RPROC)		+= stm32_rproc.o
>>   obj-$(CONFIG_TI_K3_R5_REMOTEPROC)	+= ti_k3_r5_remoteproc.o
>> +obj-$(CONFIG_TI_K3_DSP_REMOTEPROC)	+= ti_k3_dsp_remoteproc.o
>> diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/ti_k3_dsp_remoteproc.c b/drivers/remoteproc/ti_k3_dsp_remoteproc.c
>> new file mode 100644
>> index 000000000000..fd0d84f46f90
>> --- /dev/null
>> +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/ti_k3_dsp_remoteproc.c
>> @@ -0,0 +1,736 @@
>> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only
>> +/*
>> + * TI K3 DSP Remote Processor(s) driver
>> + *
>> + * Copyright (C) 2018-2020 Texas Instruments Incorporated - http://www.ti.com/
>> + *	Suman Anna <s-anna@ti.com>
>> + */
>> +
>> +#include <linux/io.h>
>> +#include <linux/module.h>
>> +#include <linux/of_device.h>
>> +#include <linux/of_reserved_mem.h>
>> +#include <linux/platform_device.h>
>> +#include <linux/pm_runtime.h>
>> +#include <linux/remoteproc.h>
>> +#include <linux/mailbox_client.h>
>> +#include <linux/omap-mailbox.h>
> 
> Please move these two up.

OK.

> 
>> +#include <linux/reset.h>
>> +#include <linux/soc/ti/ti_sci_protocol.h>
>> +
>> +#include "omap_remoteproc.h"
>> +#include "remoteproc_internal.h"
>> +#include "ti_sci_proc.h"
>> +
>> +#define KEYSTONE_RPROC_LOCAL_ADDRESS_MASK	(SZ_16M - 1)
>> +
>> +/**
>> + * struct k3_dsp_rproc_mem - internal memory structure
>> + * @cpu_addr: MPU virtual address of the memory region
>> + * @bus_addr: Bus address used to access the memory region
>> + * @dev_addr: Device address of the memory region from DSP view
>> + * @size: Size of the memory region
>> + */
>> +struct k3_dsp_rproc_mem {
> 
> I would rename this 'k3_dsp_mem' to be consistent with k3_r5_mem.

Yeah, will rename.

> 
>> +	void __iomem *cpu_addr;
>> +	phys_addr_t bus_addr;
>> +	u32 dev_addr;
>> +	size_t size;
>> +};
>> +
>> +/**
>> + * struct k3_dsp_mem_data - memory definitions for a DSP
>> + * @name: name for this memory entry
>> + * @dev_addr: device address for the memory entry
>> + */
>> +struct k3_dsp_mem_data {
>> +	const char *name;
>> +	const u32 dev_addr;
>> +};
>> +
>> +/**
>> + * struct k3_dsp_dev_data - device data structure for a DSP
>> + * @mems: pointer to memory definitions for a DSP
>> + * @num_mems: number of memory regions in @mems
>> + * @boot_align_addr: boot vector address alignment granularity
>> + * @uses_lreset: flag to denote the need for local reset management
>> + */
>> +struct k3_dsp_dev_data {
>> +	const struct k3_dsp_mem_data *mems;
>> +	u32 num_mems;
>> +	u32 boot_align_addr;
>> +	bool uses_lreset;
>> +};
>> +
>> +/**
>> + * struct k3_dsp_rproc - k3 DSP remote processor driver structure
>> + * @dev: cached device pointer
>> + * @rproc: remoteproc device handle
>> + * @mem: internal memory regions data
>> + * @num_mems: number of internal memory regions
>> + * @rmem: reserved memory regions data
>> + * @num_rmems: number of reserved memory regions
>> + * @reset: reset control handle
>> + * @data: pointer to DSP-specific device data
>> + * @tsp: TI-SCI processor control handle
>> + * @ti_sci: TI-SCI handle
>> + * @ti_sci_id: TI-SCI device identifier
>> + * @mbox: mailbox channel handle
>> + * @client: mailbox client to request the mailbox channel
>> + */
>> +struct k3_dsp_rproc {
>> +	struct device *dev;
>> +	struct rproc *rproc;
>> +	struct k3_dsp_rproc_mem *mem;
>> +	int num_mems;
>> +	struct k3_dsp_rproc_mem *rmem;
>> +	int num_rmems;
>> +	struct reset_control *reset;
>> +	const struct k3_dsp_dev_data *data;
>> +	struct ti_sci_proc *tsp;
>> +	const struct ti_sci_handle *ti_sci;
>> +	u32 ti_sci_id;
>> +	struct mbox_chan *mbox;
>> +	struct mbox_client client;
>> +};
>> +
>> +/**
>> + * k3_dsp_rproc_mbox_callback() - inbound mailbox message handler
>> + * @client: mailbox client pointer used for requesting the mailbox channel
>> + * @data: mailbox payload
>> + *
>> + * This handler is invoked by the OMAP mailbox driver whenever a mailbox
>> + * message is received. Usually, the mailbox payload simply contains
>> + * the index of the virtqueue that is kicked by the remote processor,
>> + * and we let remoteproc core handle it.
>> + *
>> + * In addition to virtqueue indices, we also have some out-of-band values
>> + * that indicate different events. Those values are deliberately very
>> + * large so they don't coincide with virtqueue indices.
>> + */
>> +static void k3_dsp_rproc_mbox_callback(struct mbox_client *client, void *data)
>> +{
>> +	struct k3_dsp_rproc *kproc = container_of(client, struct k3_dsp_rproc,
>> +						client);
> 
> Indentation problem.

Thanks. Hmm, checkpatch didn't catch this.

> 
>> +	struct device *dev = kproc->rproc->dev.parent;
>> +	const char *name = kproc->rproc->name;
>> +	u32 msg = omap_mbox_message(data);
>> +
>> +	dev_dbg(dev, "mbox msg: 0x%x\n", msg);
>> +
>> +	switch (msg) {
>> +	case RP_MBOX_CRASH:
>> +		/*
>> +		 * remoteproc detected an exception, but error recovery is not
>> +		 * supported. So, just log this for now
>> +		 */
>> +		dev_err(dev, "K3 DSP rproc %s crashed\n", name);
>> +		break;
>> +	case RP_MBOX_ECHO_REPLY:
>> +		dev_info(dev, "received echo reply from %s\n", name);
>> +		break;
>> +	default:
>> +		/* silently handle all other valid messages */
>> +		if (msg >= RP_MBOX_READY && msg < RP_MBOX_END_MSG)
>> +			return;
>> +		if (msg > kproc->rproc->max_notifyid) {
>> +			dev_dbg(dev, "dropping unknown message 0x%x", msg);
>> +			return;
>> +		}
>> +		/* msg contains the index of the triggered vring */
>> +		if (rproc_vq_interrupt(kproc->rproc, msg) == IRQ_NONE)
>> +			dev_dbg(dev, "no message was found in vqid %d\n", msg);
>> +	}
>> +}
>> +
>> +/*
>> + * Kick the remote processor to notify about pending unprocessed messages.
>> + * The vqid usage is not used and is inconsequential, as the kick is performed
>> + * through a simulated GPIO (a bit in an IPC interrupt-triggering register),
>> + * the remote processor is expected to process both its Tx and Rx virtqueues.
>> + */
>> +static void k3_dsp_rproc_kick(struct rproc *rproc, int vqid)
>> +{
>> +	struct k3_dsp_rproc *kproc = rproc->priv;
>> +	struct device *dev = rproc->dev.parent;
>> +	mbox_msg_t msg = (mbox_msg_t)vqid;
>> +	int ret;
>> +
>> +	/* send the index of the triggered virtqueue in the mailbox payload */
>> +	ret = mbox_send_message(kproc->mbox, (void *)msg);
>> +	if (ret < 0)
>> +		dev_err(dev, "failed to send mailbox message, status = %d\n",
>> +			ret);
>> +}
>> +
>> +/* Put the DSP processor into reset */
>> +static int k3_dsp_rproc_reset(struct k3_dsp_rproc *kproc)
>> +{
>> +	struct device *dev = kproc->dev;
>> +	int ret;
>> +
>> +	ret = reset_control_assert(kproc->reset);
>> +	if (ret) {
>> +		dev_err(dev, "local-reset assert failed, ret = %d\n", ret);
>> +		return ret;
>> +	}
>> +
>> +	ret = kproc->ti_sci->ops.dev_ops.put_device(kproc->ti_sci,
>> +						    kproc->ti_sci_id);
>> +	if (ret) {
>> +		dev_err(dev, "module-reset assert failed, ret = %d\n", ret);
>> +		if (reset_control_deassert(kproc->reset))
>> +			dev_warn(dev, "local-reset deassert back failed\n");
>> +	}
>> +
>> +	return ret;
>> +}
>> +
>> +/* Release the DSP processor from reset */
>> +static int k3_dsp_rproc_release(struct k3_dsp_rproc *kproc)
>> +{
>> +	struct device *dev = kproc->dev;
>> +	int ret;
>> +
>> +	ret = kproc->ti_sci->ops.dev_ops.get_device(kproc->ti_sci,
>> +						   kproc->ti_sci_id);
> 
> Indentation problem.

Thanks for catching, will fix.

> 
>> +	if (ret) {
>> +		dev_err(dev, "module-reset deassert failed, ret = %d\n", ret);
>> +		return ret;
>> +	}
>> +
>> +	ret = reset_control_deassert(kproc->reset);
>> +	if (ret) {
>> +		dev_err(dev, "local-reset deassert failed, ret = %d\n", ret);
>> +		if (kproc->ti_sci->ops.dev_ops.put_device(kproc->ti_sci,
>> +							  kproc->ti_sci_id))
>> +			dev_warn(dev, "module-reset assert back failed\n");
>> +	}
>> +
>> +	return ret;
>> +}
>> +
>> +/*
>> + * Power up the DSP remote processor.
>> + *
>> + * This function will be invoked only after the firmware for this rproc
>> + * was loaded, parsed successfully, and all of its resource requirements
>> + * were met.
>> + */
>> +static int k3_dsp_rproc_start(struct rproc *rproc)
>> +{
>> +	struct k3_dsp_rproc *kproc = rproc->priv;
>> +	struct mbox_client *client = &kproc->client;
>> +	struct device *dev = kproc->dev;
>> +	u32 boot_addr;
>> +	int ret;
>> +
>> +	client->dev = dev;
>> +	client->tx_done = NULL;
>> +	client->rx_callback = k3_dsp_rproc_mbox_callback;
>> +	client->tx_block = false;
>> +	client->knows_txdone = false;
>> +
>> +	kproc->mbox = mbox_request_channel(client, 0);
>> +	if (IS_ERR(kproc->mbox)) {
>> +		ret = -EBUSY;
>> +		dev_err(dev, "mbox_request_channel failed: %ld\n",
>> +			PTR_ERR(kproc->mbox));
>> +		return ret;
>> +	}
>> +
>> +	/*
>> +	 * Ping the remote processor, this is only for sanity-sake for now;
>> +	 * there is no functional effect whatsoever.
>> +	 *
>> +	 * Note that the reply will _not_ arrive immediately: this message
>> +	 * will wait in the mailbox fifo until the remote processor is booted.
>> +	 */
>> +	ret = mbox_send_message(kproc->mbox, (void *)RP_MBOX_ECHO_REQUEST);
>> +	if (ret < 0) {
>> +		dev_err(dev, "mbox_send_message failed: %d\n", ret);
>> +		goto put_mbox;
>> +	}
>> +
>> +	boot_addr = rproc->bootaddr;
>> +	if (boot_addr & (kproc->data->boot_align_addr - 1)) {
>> +		dev_err(dev, "invalid boot address 0x%x, must be aligned on a 0x%x boundary\n",
>> +			boot_addr, kproc->data->boot_align_addr);
>> +		ret = -EINVAL;
>> +		goto put_mbox;
>> +	}
>> +
>> +	dev_err(dev, "booting DSP core using boot addr = 0x%x\n", boot_addr);
>> +	ret = ti_sci_proc_set_config(kproc->tsp, boot_addr, 0, 0);
>> +	if (ret)
>> +		goto put_mbox;
>> +
>> +	ret = k3_dsp_rproc_release(kproc);
>> +	if (ret)
>> +		goto put_mbox;
>> +
>> +	return 0;
>> +
>> +put_mbox:
>> +	mbox_free_channel(kproc->mbox);
>> +	return ret;
>> +}
>> +
>> +/*
>> + * Stop the DSP remote processor.
>> + *
>> + * This function puts the DSP processor into reset, and finishes processing
>> + * of any pending messages.
>> + */
>> +static int k3_dsp_rproc_stop(struct rproc *rproc)
>> +{
>> +	struct k3_dsp_rproc *kproc = rproc->priv;
>> +
>> +	mbox_free_channel(kproc->mbox);
>> +
>> +	k3_dsp_rproc_reset(kproc);
>> +
>> +	return 0;
>> +}
>> +
>> +/*
>> + * Custom function to translate a DSP device address (internal RAMs only) to a
>> + * kernel virtual address.  The DSPs can access their RAMs at either an internal
>> + * address visible only from a DSP, or at the SoC-level bus address. Both these
>> + * addresses need to be looked through for translation. The translated addresses
>> + * can be used either by the remoteproc core for loading (when using kernel
>> + * remoteproc loader), or by any rpmsg bus drivers.
>> + */
>> +static void *k3_dsp_rproc_da_to_va(struct rproc *rproc, u64 da, size_t len)
>> +{
>> +	struct k3_dsp_rproc *kproc = rproc->priv;
>> +	void __iomem *va = NULL;
>> +	phys_addr_t bus_addr;
>> +	u32 dev_addr, offset;
>> +	size_t size;
>> +	int i;
>> +
>> +	if (len == 0)
>> +		return NULL;
>> +
>> +	for (i = 0; i < kproc->num_mems; i++) {
>> +		bus_addr = kproc->mem[i].bus_addr;
>> +		dev_addr = kproc->mem[i].dev_addr;
>> +		size = kproc->mem[i].size;
>> +
>> +		if (da < KEYSTONE_RPROC_LOCAL_ADDRESS_MASK) {
>> +			/* handle DSP-view addresses */
>> +			if (da >= dev_addr &&
>> +			    ((da + len) <= (dev_addr + size))) {
>> +				offset = da - dev_addr;
>> +				va = kproc->mem[i].cpu_addr + offset;
>> +				return (__force void *)va;
>> +			}
>> +		} else {
>> +			/* handle SoC-view addresses */
>> +			if (da >= bus_addr &&
>> +			    (da + len) <= (bus_addr + size)) {
>> +				offset = da - bus_addr;
>> +				va = kproc->mem[i].cpu_addr + offset;
>> +				return (__force void *)va;
>> +			}
>> +		}
>> +	}
>> +
>> +	/* handle static DDR reserved memory regions */
>> +	for (i = 0; i < kproc->num_rmems; i++) {
>> +		dev_addr = kproc->rmem[i].dev_addr;
>> +		size = kproc->rmem[i].size;
>> +
>> +		if (da >= dev_addr && ((da + len) <= (dev_addr + size))) {
>> +			offset = da - dev_addr;
>> +			va = kproc->rmem[i].cpu_addr + offset;
>> +			return (__force void *)va;
>> +		}
>> +	}
>> +
>> +	return NULL;
>> +}
>> +
>> +static const struct rproc_ops k3_dsp_rproc_ops = {
>> +	.start		= k3_dsp_rproc_start,
>> +	.stop		= k3_dsp_rproc_stop,
>> +	.kick		= k3_dsp_rproc_kick,
>> +	.da_to_va	= k3_dsp_rproc_da_to_va,
>> +};
>> +
>> +static const char *k3_dsp_rproc_get_firmware(struct device *dev)
>> +{
>> +	const char *fw_name;
>> +	int ret;
>> +
>> +	ret = of_property_read_string(dev->of_node, "firmware-name",
>> +				      &fw_name);
>> +	if (ret) {
>> +		dev_err(dev, "failed to parse firmware-name property, ret = %d\n",
>> +			ret);
>> +		return ERR_PTR(ret);
>> +	}
>> +
>> +	return fw_name;
>> +}
> 
> The above is a carbon copy of k3_r5_rproc_get_firmware().  Please reuse the same
> function.

Yeah, I can add this as a common helper to rproc core, would be useful 
beyond just the TI rproc drivers.

> 
>> +
>> +static int k3_dsp_rproc_of_get_memories(struct platform_device *pdev,
>> +					struct k3_dsp_rproc *kproc)
>> +{
>> +	const struct k3_dsp_dev_data *data = kproc->data;
>> +	struct device *dev = &pdev->dev;
>> +	struct resource *res;
>> +	int num_mems = 0;
>> +	int i;
>> +
>> +	num_mems = kproc->data->num_mems;
>> +	kproc->mem = devm_kcalloc(kproc->dev, num_mems,
>> +				  sizeof(*kproc->mem), GFP_KERNEL);
>> +	if (!kproc->mem)
>> +		return -ENOMEM;
>> +
>> +	for (i = 0; i < num_mems; i++) {
>> +		res = platform_get_resource_byname(pdev, IORESOURCE_MEM,
>> +						   data->mems[i].name);
>> +		if (!res) {
>> +			dev_err(dev, "found no memory resource for %s\n",
>> +				data->mems[i].name);
>> +			return -EINVAL;
>> +		}
>> +		if (!devm_request_mem_region(dev, res->start,
>> +					     resource_size(res),
>> +					     dev_name(dev))) {
>> +			dev_err(dev, "could not request %s region for resource\n",
>> +				data->mems[i].name);
>> +			return -EBUSY;
>> +		}
>> +
>> +		kproc->mem[i].cpu_addr = devm_ioremap_wc(dev, res->start,
>> +							 resource_size(res));
>> +		if (IS_ERR(kproc->mem[i].cpu_addr)) {
>> +			dev_err(dev, "failed to map %s memory\n",
>> +				data->mems[i].name);
>> +			return PTR_ERR(kproc->mem[i].cpu_addr);
>> +		}
>> +		kproc->mem[i].bus_addr = res->start;
>> +		kproc->mem[i].dev_addr = data->mems[i].dev_addr;
>> +		kproc->mem[i].size = resource_size(res);
>> +
>> +		dev_dbg(dev, "memory %8s: bus addr %pa size 0x%zx va %pK da 0x%x\n",
>> +			data->mems[i].name, &kproc->mem[i].bus_addr,
>> +			kproc->mem[i].size, kproc->mem[i].cpu_addr,
>> +			kproc->mem[i].dev_addr);
>> +
>> +		/* zero out memories to start in a pristine state */
>> +		/*
>> +		 * FIXME: comment out until kernel crash is fixed, possible
>> +		 * issue with local resets.
>> +		 * memset((__force void *)kproc->mem[i].cpu_addr, 0,
>> +		 *      kproc->mem[i].size);
>> +		 */
> 
> Things still work without zero'ing out the memory?  As such is it mandatory to
> do so? Function k3_r5_core_of_get_internal_memories does not do a memset().  And
> didn't Peng also had this problem?

This is a stale comment, I will clean this up. The zeroing out is not 
strictly needed, it is only to ensure that the DSPs are started in a 
pristine condition. The issue is unrelated to what Peng reported, it is 
not the ARM memset issue (which won't be an issue since I am already 
using the ioremap_wc variant), but rather related to device being 
powered-on to be able to access the DSP internal memories from ARM. This 
won't be powered on at the time this function is invoked anyway. The R5F 
does needs to memzero it for ECC reasons, and does so in the 
k3_r5_rproc_prepare().

> 
>> +	}
>> +	kproc->num_mems = num_mems;
>> +
>> +	return 0;
>> +}
>> +
>> +static int k3_dsp_reserved_mem_init(struct k3_dsp_rproc *kproc)
>> +{
>> +	struct device *dev = kproc->dev;
>> +	struct device_node *np = dev->of_node;
>> +	struct device_node *rmem_np;
>> +	struct reserved_mem *rmem;
>> +	int num_rmems;
>> +	int ret, i;
>> +
>> +	num_rmems = of_property_count_elems_of_size(np, "memory-region",
>> +						    sizeof(phandle));
>> +	if (num_rmems <= 0) {
>> +		dev_err(dev, "device does not reserved memory regions, ret = %d\n",
>> +			num_rmems);
>> +		return -EINVAL;
>> +	}
>> +	if (num_rmems < 2) {
>> +		dev_err(dev, "device needs atleast two memory regions to be defined, num = %d\n",
>> +			num_rmems);
>> +		return -EINVAL;
>> +	}
>> +
>> +	/* use reserved memory region 0 for vring DMA allocations */
>> +	ret = of_reserved_mem_device_init_by_idx(dev, np, 0);
>> +	if (ret) {
>> +		dev_err(dev, "device cannot initialize DMA pool, ret = %d\n",
>> +			ret);
>> +		return ret;
>> +	}
>> +
>> +	num_rmems--;
>> +	kproc->rmem = kcalloc(num_rmems, sizeof(*kproc->rmem), GFP_KERNEL);
>> +	if (!kproc->rmem) {
>> +		ret = -ENOMEM;
>> +		goto release_rmem;
>> +	}
>> +
>> +	/* use remaining reserved memory regions for static carveouts */
>> +	for (i = 0; i < num_rmems; i++) {
>> +		rmem_np = of_parse_phandle(np, "memory-region", i + 1);
>> +		if (!rmem_np) {
>> +			ret = -EINVAL;
>> +			goto unmap_rmem;
>> +		}
>> +
>> +		rmem = of_reserved_mem_lookup(rmem_np);
>> +		if (!rmem) {
>> +			of_node_put(rmem_np);
>> +			ret = -EINVAL;
>> +			goto unmap_rmem;
>> +		}
>> +		of_node_put(rmem_np);
>> +
>> +		kproc->rmem[i].bus_addr = rmem->base;
>> +		/* 64-bit address regions currently not supported */
>> +		kproc->rmem[i].dev_addr = (u32)rmem->base;
>> +		kproc->rmem[i].size = rmem->size;
>> +		kproc->rmem[i].cpu_addr = ioremap_wc(rmem->base, rmem->size);
>> +		if (!kproc->rmem[i].cpu_addr) {
>> +			dev_err(dev, "failed to map reserved memory#%d at %pa of size %pa\n",
>> +				i + 1, &rmem->base, &rmem->size);
>> +			ret = -ENOMEM;
>> +			goto unmap_rmem;
>> +		}
>> +
>> +		dev_dbg(dev, "reserved memory%d: bus addr %pa size 0x%zx va %pK da 0x%x\n",
>> +			i + 1, &kproc->rmem[i].bus_addr,
>> +			kproc->rmem[i].size, kproc->rmem[i].cpu_addr,
>> +			kproc->rmem[i].dev_addr);
>> +	}
>> +	kproc->num_rmems = num_rmems;
>> +
>> +	return 0;
>> +
>> +unmap_rmem:
>> +	for (i--; i >= 0; i--) {
>> +		if (kproc->rmem[i].cpu_addr)
>> +			iounmap(kproc->rmem[i].cpu_addr);
>> +	}
>> +	kfree(kproc->rmem);
>> +release_rmem:
>> +	of_reserved_mem_device_release(kproc->dev);
>> +	return ret;
>> +}
> 
> Other than the type of structure passed to the function, this is an exact
> replica of k3_r5_reserved_mem_init().  Do you foresee either of them changing
> to a point where reusing code would be counter productive?  I think we are right
> on the edge where duplication is better than using the same function.

Yeah, nothing at the moment. The number of regions can change, I have 
not enabled the support for addresses beyond 32-bit atm, so that is 
another factor.

> 
>> +
>> +static void k3_dsp_reserved_mem_exit(struct k3_dsp_rproc *kproc)
>> +{
>> +	int i;
>> +
>> +	for (i = 0; i < kproc->num_rmems; i++)
>> +		iounmap(kproc->rmem[i].cpu_addr);
>> +	kfree(kproc->rmem);
>> +
>> +	of_reserved_mem_device_release(kproc->dev);
>> +}
>> +
>> +static
>> +struct ti_sci_proc *k3_dsp_rproc_of_get_tsp(struct device *dev,
>> +					    const struct ti_sci_handle *sci)
>> +{
>> +	struct ti_sci_proc *tsp;
>> +	u32 temp[2];
>> +	int ret;
>> +
>> +	ret = of_property_read_u32_array(dev->of_node, "ti,sci-proc-ids",
>> +					 temp, 2);
>> +	if (ret < 0)
>> +		return ERR_PTR(ret);
>> +
>> +	tsp = kzalloc(sizeof(*tsp), GFP_KERNEL);
>> +	if (!tsp)
>> +		return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
>> +
>> +	tsp->dev = dev;
>> +	tsp->sci = sci;
>> +	tsp->ops = &sci->ops.proc_ops;
>> +	tsp->proc_id = temp[0];
>> +	tsp->host_id = temp[1];
>> +
>> +	return tsp;
>> +}
> 
> Contrary to k3_dsp_reserved_mem_init(), this one can definitely be reused for
> both c66 and r5.

Yeah, but is it worth it introduce a common module for one function? 
Little bit large to define this as an inline function like I have done 
with most of the ti_sci_proc helpers.

> 
>> +
>> +static int k3_dsp_rproc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>> +{
>> +	struct device *dev = &pdev->dev;
>> +	struct device_node *np = dev->of_node;
>> +	const struct k3_dsp_dev_data *data;
>> +	struct k3_dsp_rproc *kproc;
>> +	struct rproc *rproc;
>> +	const char *fw_name;
>> +	int ret = 0;
>> +	int ret1;
>> +
>> +	data = of_device_get_match_data(dev);
>> +	if (!data)
>> +		return -ENODEV;
>> +
>> +	fw_name = k3_dsp_rproc_get_firmware(dev);
>> +	if (IS_ERR(fw_name))
>> +		return PTR_ERR(fw_name);
>> +
>> +	rproc = rproc_alloc(dev, dev_name(dev), &k3_dsp_rproc_ops, fw_name,
>> +			    sizeof(*kproc));
>> +	if (!rproc)
>> +		return -ENOMEM;
>> +
>> +	rproc->has_iommu = false;
>> +	rproc->recovery_disabled = true;
>> +	kproc = rproc->priv;
>> +	kproc->rproc = rproc;
>> +	kproc->dev = dev;
>> +	kproc->data = data;
>> +
>> +	kproc->ti_sci = ti_sci_get_by_phandle(np, "ti,sci");
>> +	if (IS_ERR(kproc->ti_sci)) {
>> +		ret = PTR_ERR(kproc->ti_sci);
>> +		if (ret != -EPROBE_DEFER) {
>> +			dev_err(dev, "failed to get ti-sci handle, ret = %d\n",
>> +				ret);
>> +		}
>> +		kproc->ti_sci = NULL;
>> +		goto free_rproc;
>> +	}
>> +
>> +	ret = of_property_read_u32(np, "ti,sci-dev-id", &kproc->ti_sci_id);
>> +	if (ret) {
>> +		dev_err(dev, "missing 'ti,sci-dev-id' property\n");
>> +		goto put_sci;
>> +	}
>> +
>> +	kproc->reset = devm_reset_control_get_exclusive(dev, NULL);
>> +	if (IS_ERR(kproc->reset)) {
>> +		ret = PTR_ERR(kproc->reset);
>> +		dev_err(dev, "failed to get reset, status = %d\n", ret);
>> +		goto put_sci;
>> +	}
>> +
>> +	kproc->tsp = k3_dsp_rproc_of_get_tsp(dev, kproc->ti_sci);
>> +	if (IS_ERR(kproc->tsp)) {
>> +		dev_err(dev, "failed to construct ti-sci proc control, ret = %d\n",
>> +			ret);
>> +		ret = PTR_ERR(kproc->tsp);
>> +		goto put_sci;
>> +	}
>> +
>> +	ret = ti_sci_proc_request(kproc->tsp);
>> +	if (ret < 0) {
>> +		dev_err(dev, "ti_sci_proc_request failed, ret = %d\n", ret);
>> +		goto free_tsp;
>> +	}
>> +
>> +	pm_runtime_enable(dev);
>> +	ret = pm_runtime_get_sync(dev);
> 
> What do these give you since the dev_pm_ops is not set for the
> k3_dsp_rproc_driver platform diver and there is no clock specified in the DT?

Yeah, I can drop this. Adding a clock in DT would not have made any 
difference here, but a power-domains property would have. And I don't 
use the power-domains property because of the genpd handling in driver 
core that messes with the device state.

regards
Sumahn

> 
> Thanks,
> Mathieu
> 
>> +	if (ret < 0) {
>> +		dev_err(dev, "failed to enable clock, status = %d\n", ret);
>> +		pm_runtime_put_noidle(dev);
>> +		goto disable_rpm;
>> +	}
>> +
>> +	ret = k3_dsp_rproc_of_get_memories(pdev, kproc);
>> +	if (ret)
>> +		goto disable_clk;
>> +
>> +	ret = k3_dsp_reserved_mem_init(kproc);
>> +	if (ret) {
>> +		dev_err(dev, "reserved memory init failed, ret = %d\n", ret);
>> +		goto disable_clk;
>> +	}
>> +
>> +	ret = rproc_add(rproc);
>> +	if (ret) {
>> +		dev_err(dev, "failed to add register device with remoteproc core, status = %d\n",
>> +			ret);
>> +		goto release_mem;
>> +	}
>> +
>> +	platform_set_drvdata(pdev, kproc);
>> +
>> +	return 0;
>> +
>> +release_mem:
>> +	k3_dsp_reserved_mem_exit(kproc);
>> +disable_clk:
>> +	pm_runtime_put_sync(dev);
>> +disable_rpm:
>> +	pm_runtime_disable(dev);
>> +	ret1 = ti_sci_proc_release(kproc->tsp);
>> +	if (ret1)
>> +		dev_err(dev, "failed to release proc, ret = %d\n", ret1);
>> +free_tsp:
>> +	kfree(kproc->tsp);
>> +put_sci:
>> +	ret1 = ti_sci_put_handle(kproc->ti_sci);
>> +	if (ret1)
>> +		dev_err(dev, "failed to put ti_sci handle, ret = %d\n", ret1);
>> +free_rproc:
>> +	rproc_free(rproc);
>> +	return ret;
>> +}
>> +
>> +static int k3_dsp_rproc_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
>> +{
>> +	struct k3_dsp_rproc *kproc = platform_get_drvdata(pdev);
>> +	struct device *dev = &pdev->dev;
>> +	int ret;
>> +
>> +	rproc_del(kproc->rproc);
>> +	pm_runtime_put_sync(&pdev->dev);
>> +	pm_runtime_disable(&pdev->dev);
>> +
>> +	ret = ti_sci_proc_release(kproc->tsp);
>> +	if (ret)
>> +		dev_err(dev, "failed to release proc, ret = %d\n", ret);
>> +
>> +	kfree(kproc->tsp);
>> +
>> +	ret = ti_sci_put_handle(kproc->ti_sci);
>> +	if (ret)
>> +		dev_err(dev, "failed to put ti_sci handle, ret = %d\n", ret);
>> +
>> +	k3_dsp_reserved_mem_exit(kproc);
>> +	rproc_free(kproc->rproc);
>> +
>> +	return 0;
>> +}
>> +
>> +static const struct k3_dsp_mem_data c66_mems[] = {
>> +	{ .name = "l2sram", .dev_addr = 0x800000 },
>> +	{ .name = "l1pram", .dev_addr = 0xe00000 },
>> +	{ .name = "l1dram", .dev_addr = 0xf00000 },
>> +};
>> +
>> +static const struct k3_dsp_dev_data c66_data = {
>> +	.mems = c66_mems,
>> +	.num_mems = ARRAY_SIZE(c66_mems),
>> +	.boot_align_addr = SZ_1K,
>> +	.uses_lreset = true,
>> +};
>> +
>> +static const struct of_device_id k3_dsp_of_match[] = {
>> +	{ .compatible = "ti,j721e-c66-dsp", .data = &c66_data, },
>> +	{ /* sentinel */ },
>> +};
>> +MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, k3_dsp_of_match);
>> +
>> +static struct platform_driver k3_dsp_rproc_driver = {
>> +	.probe	= k3_dsp_rproc_probe,
>> +	.remove	= k3_dsp_rproc_remove,
>> +	.driver	= {
>> +		.name = "k3-dsp-rproc",
>> +		.of_match_table = k3_dsp_of_match,
>> +	},
>> +};
>> +
>> +module_platform_driver(k3_dsp_rproc_driver);
>> +
>> +MODULE_AUTHOR("Suman Anna <s-anna@ti.com>");
>> +MODULE_LICENSE("GPL v2");
>> +MODULE_DESCRIPTION("TI K3 DSP Remoteproc driver");
>> -- 
>> 2.23.0
>>


WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID
From: Suman Anna <s-anna@ti.com>
To: Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@linaro.org>
Cc: devicetree@vger.kernel.org, Lokesh Vutla <lokeshvutla@ti.com>,
	linux-remoteproc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@linaro.org>,
	Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] remoteproc/k3-dsp: Add a remoteproc driver of K3 C66x DSPs
Date: Wed, 13 May 2020 13:14:16 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <908c1244-b9d8-e9bf-87d7-b60a73e98f18@ti.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200427225737.GB10552@xps15>

Hi Mathieu,

On 4/27/20 5:57 PM, Mathieu Poirier wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 03:18:38PM -0500, Suman Anna wrote:
>> The Texas Instrument's K3 J721E SoCs have two C66x DSP Subsystems in MAIN
>> voltage domain that are based on the TI's standard TMS320C66x DSP CorePac
>> module. Each subsystem has a Fixed/Floating-Point DSP CPU, with 32 KB each
>> of L1P & L1D SRAMs that can be configured and partitioned as either RAM
>> and/or Cache, and 288 KB of L2 SRAM with 256 KB of memory configurable as
>> either RAM and/or Cache. The CorePac also includes an Internal DMA (IDMA),
>> External Memory Controller (EMC), Extended Memory Controller (XMC) with a
>> Region Address Translator (RAT) unit for 32-bit to 48-bit address
>> extension/translations, an Interrupt Controller (INTC) and a Powerdown
>> Controller (PDC).
>>
>> A new remoteproc module is added to perform the device management of
>> these DSP devices. The support is limited to images using only external
>> DDR memory at the moment, the loading support to internal memories and
>> any on-chip RAM memories will be added in a subsequent patch. RAT support
>> is also left for a future patch, and as such the reserved memory carveout
>> regions are all expected to be using memory regions within the first 2 GB.
>> Error Recovery and Power Management features are not currently supported.
>>
>> The C66x remote processors do not have an MMU, and so require fixed memory
>> carveout regions matching the firmware image addresses. Support for this
>> is provided by mandating multiple memory regions to be attached to the
>> remoteproc device. The first memory region will be used to serve as the
>> DMA pool for all dynamic allocations like the vrings and vring buffers.
>> The remaining memory regions are mapped into the kernel at device probe
>> time, and are used to provide address translations for firmware image
>> segments without the need for any RSC_CARVEOUT entries. Any firmware
>> image using memory outside of the supplied reserved memory carveout
>> regions will be errored out.
>>
>> The driver uses various TI-SCI interfaces to talk to the System Controller
>> (DMSC) for managing configuration, power and reset management of these
>> cores. IPC between the A72 cores and the DSP cores is supported through
>> the virtio rpmsg stack using shared memory and OMAP Mailboxes.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Suman Anna <s-anna@ti.com>
>> ---
>>   drivers/remoteproc/Kconfig                |  16 +
>>   drivers/remoteproc/Makefile               |   1 +
>>   drivers/remoteproc/ti_k3_dsp_remoteproc.c | 736 ++++++++++++++++++++++
>>   3 files changed, 753 insertions(+)
>>   create mode 100644 drivers/remoteproc/ti_k3_dsp_remoteproc.c
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/Kconfig b/drivers/remoteproc/Kconfig
>> index 073048b4c0fb..66a76acb15b6 100644
>> --- a/drivers/remoteproc/Kconfig
>> +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/Kconfig
>> @@ -240,6 +240,22 @@ config TI_K3_R5_REMOTEPROC
>>   	  It's safe to say N here if you're not interested in utilizing
>>   	  a slave processor
>>   
>> +config TI_K3_DSP_REMOTEPROC
>> +	tristate "TI K3 DSP remoteproc support"
>> +	depends on ARCH_K3
>> +	select MAILBOX
>> +	select OMAP2PLUS_MBOX
>> +	help
>> +	  Say y here to support TI's C66x and C71x DSP remote processor
>> +	  subsystems on various TI K3 family of SoCs through the remote
>> +	  processor framework.
>> +
>> +	  You want to say m here in order to offload some processing
>> +	  tasks to these processors.
> 
> Building this driver has a module, i.e 'm', has nothing to do with what the
> remote processor does.  I would simply remove the above 2 lines.

Yes, can drop. I will switch the "Say y" to "Say m" - that would be the 
preferred option. Having the driver built-in means the firmware has to 
be part of initramfs.

> 
>> +
>> +	  It's safe to say N here if you're not interested in utilizing
>> +	  the DSP slave processors.
>> +
>>   endif # REMOTEPROC
>>   
>>   endmenu
>> diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/Makefile b/drivers/remoteproc/Makefile
>> index 00ba826818af..eb51cc09e47b 100644
>> --- a/drivers/remoteproc/Makefile
>> +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/Makefile
>> @@ -29,3 +29,4 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_ST_REMOTEPROC)		+= st_remoteproc.o
>>   obj-$(CONFIG_ST_SLIM_REMOTEPROC)	+= st_slim_rproc.o
>>   obj-$(CONFIG_STM32_RPROC)		+= stm32_rproc.o
>>   obj-$(CONFIG_TI_K3_R5_REMOTEPROC)	+= ti_k3_r5_remoteproc.o
>> +obj-$(CONFIG_TI_K3_DSP_REMOTEPROC)	+= ti_k3_dsp_remoteproc.o
>> diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/ti_k3_dsp_remoteproc.c b/drivers/remoteproc/ti_k3_dsp_remoteproc.c
>> new file mode 100644
>> index 000000000000..fd0d84f46f90
>> --- /dev/null
>> +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/ti_k3_dsp_remoteproc.c
>> @@ -0,0 +1,736 @@
>> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only
>> +/*
>> + * TI K3 DSP Remote Processor(s) driver
>> + *
>> + * Copyright (C) 2018-2020 Texas Instruments Incorporated - http://www.ti.com/
>> + *	Suman Anna <s-anna@ti.com>
>> + */
>> +
>> +#include <linux/io.h>
>> +#include <linux/module.h>
>> +#include <linux/of_device.h>
>> +#include <linux/of_reserved_mem.h>
>> +#include <linux/platform_device.h>
>> +#include <linux/pm_runtime.h>
>> +#include <linux/remoteproc.h>
>> +#include <linux/mailbox_client.h>
>> +#include <linux/omap-mailbox.h>
> 
> Please move these two up.

OK.

> 
>> +#include <linux/reset.h>
>> +#include <linux/soc/ti/ti_sci_protocol.h>
>> +
>> +#include "omap_remoteproc.h"
>> +#include "remoteproc_internal.h"
>> +#include "ti_sci_proc.h"
>> +
>> +#define KEYSTONE_RPROC_LOCAL_ADDRESS_MASK	(SZ_16M - 1)
>> +
>> +/**
>> + * struct k3_dsp_rproc_mem - internal memory structure
>> + * @cpu_addr: MPU virtual address of the memory region
>> + * @bus_addr: Bus address used to access the memory region
>> + * @dev_addr: Device address of the memory region from DSP view
>> + * @size: Size of the memory region
>> + */
>> +struct k3_dsp_rproc_mem {
> 
> I would rename this 'k3_dsp_mem' to be consistent with k3_r5_mem.

Yeah, will rename.

> 
>> +	void __iomem *cpu_addr;
>> +	phys_addr_t bus_addr;
>> +	u32 dev_addr;
>> +	size_t size;
>> +};
>> +
>> +/**
>> + * struct k3_dsp_mem_data - memory definitions for a DSP
>> + * @name: name for this memory entry
>> + * @dev_addr: device address for the memory entry
>> + */
>> +struct k3_dsp_mem_data {
>> +	const char *name;
>> +	const u32 dev_addr;
>> +};
>> +
>> +/**
>> + * struct k3_dsp_dev_data - device data structure for a DSP
>> + * @mems: pointer to memory definitions for a DSP
>> + * @num_mems: number of memory regions in @mems
>> + * @boot_align_addr: boot vector address alignment granularity
>> + * @uses_lreset: flag to denote the need for local reset management
>> + */
>> +struct k3_dsp_dev_data {
>> +	const struct k3_dsp_mem_data *mems;
>> +	u32 num_mems;
>> +	u32 boot_align_addr;
>> +	bool uses_lreset;
>> +};
>> +
>> +/**
>> + * struct k3_dsp_rproc - k3 DSP remote processor driver structure
>> + * @dev: cached device pointer
>> + * @rproc: remoteproc device handle
>> + * @mem: internal memory regions data
>> + * @num_mems: number of internal memory regions
>> + * @rmem: reserved memory regions data
>> + * @num_rmems: number of reserved memory regions
>> + * @reset: reset control handle
>> + * @data: pointer to DSP-specific device data
>> + * @tsp: TI-SCI processor control handle
>> + * @ti_sci: TI-SCI handle
>> + * @ti_sci_id: TI-SCI device identifier
>> + * @mbox: mailbox channel handle
>> + * @client: mailbox client to request the mailbox channel
>> + */
>> +struct k3_dsp_rproc {
>> +	struct device *dev;
>> +	struct rproc *rproc;
>> +	struct k3_dsp_rproc_mem *mem;
>> +	int num_mems;
>> +	struct k3_dsp_rproc_mem *rmem;
>> +	int num_rmems;
>> +	struct reset_control *reset;
>> +	const struct k3_dsp_dev_data *data;
>> +	struct ti_sci_proc *tsp;
>> +	const struct ti_sci_handle *ti_sci;
>> +	u32 ti_sci_id;
>> +	struct mbox_chan *mbox;
>> +	struct mbox_client client;
>> +};
>> +
>> +/**
>> + * k3_dsp_rproc_mbox_callback() - inbound mailbox message handler
>> + * @client: mailbox client pointer used for requesting the mailbox channel
>> + * @data: mailbox payload
>> + *
>> + * This handler is invoked by the OMAP mailbox driver whenever a mailbox
>> + * message is received. Usually, the mailbox payload simply contains
>> + * the index of the virtqueue that is kicked by the remote processor,
>> + * and we let remoteproc core handle it.
>> + *
>> + * In addition to virtqueue indices, we also have some out-of-band values
>> + * that indicate different events. Those values are deliberately very
>> + * large so they don't coincide with virtqueue indices.
>> + */
>> +static void k3_dsp_rproc_mbox_callback(struct mbox_client *client, void *data)
>> +{
>> +	struct k3_dsp_rproc *kproc = container_of(client, struct k3_dsp_rproc,
>> +						client);
> 
> Indentation problem.

Thanks. Hmm, checkpatch didn't catch this.

> 
>> +	struct device *dev = kproc->rproc->dev.parent;
>> +	const char *name = kproc->rproc->name;
>> +	u32 msg = omap_mbox_message(data);
>> +
>> +	dev_dbg(dev, "mbox msg: 0x%x\n", msg);
>> +
>> +	switch (msg) {
>> +	case RP_MBOX_CRASH:
>> +		/*
>> +		 * remoteproc detected an exception, but error recovery is not
>> +		 * supported. So, just log this for now
>> +		 */
>> +		dev_err(dev, "K3 DSP rproc %s crashed\n", name);
>> +		break;
>> +	case RP_MBOX_ECHO_REPLY:
>> +		dev_info(dev, "received echo reply from %s\n", name);
>> +		break;
>> +	default:
>> +		/* silently handle all other valid messages */
>> +		if (msg >= RP_MBOX_READY && msg < RP_MBOX_END_MSG)
>> +			return;
>> +		if (msg > kproc->rproc->max_notifyid) {
>> +			dev_dbg(dev, "dropping unknown message 0x%x", msg);
>> +			return;
>> +		}
>> +		/* msg contains the index of the triggered vring */
>> +		if (rproc_vq_interrupt(kproc->rproc, msg) == IRQ_NONE)
>> +			dev_dbg(dev, "no message was found in vqid %d\n", msg);
>> +	}
>> +}
>> +
>> +/*
>> + * Kick the remote processor to notify about pending unprocessed messages.
>> + * The vqid usage is not used and is inconsequential, as the kick is performed
>> + * through a simulated GPIO (a bit in an IPC interrupt-triggering register),
>> + * the remote processor is expected to process both its Tx and Rx virtqueues.
>> + */
>> +static void k3_dsp_rproc_kick(struct rproc *rproc, int vqid)
>> +{
>> +	struct k3_dsp_rproc *kproc = rproc->priv;
>> +	struct device *dev = rproc->dev.parent;
>> +	mbox_msg_t msg = (mbox_msg_t)vqid;
>> +	int ret;
>> +
>> +	/* send the index of the triggered virtqueue in the mailbox payload */
>> +	ret = mbox_send_message(kproc->mbox, (void *)msg);
>> +	if (ret < 0)
>> +		dev_err(dev, "failed to send mailbox message, status = %d\n",
>> +			ret);
>> +}
>> +
>> +/* Put the DSP processor into reset */
>> +static int k3_dsp_rproc_reset(struct k3_dsp_rproc *kproc)
>> +{
>> +	struct device *dev = kproc->dev;
>> +	int ret;
>> +
>> +	ret = reset_control_assert(kproc->reset);
>> +	if (ret) {
>> +		dev_err(dev, "local-reset assert failed, ret = %d\n", ret);
>> +		return ret;
>> +	}
>> +
>> +	ret = kproc->ti_sci->ops.dev_ops.put_device(kproc->ti_sci,
>> +						    kproc->ti_sci_id);
>> +	if (ret) {
>> +		dev_err(dev, "module-reset assert failed, ret = %d\n", ret);
>> +		if (reset_control_deassert(kproc->reset))
>> +			dev_warn(dev, "local-reset deassert back failed\n");
>> +	}
>> +
>> +	return ret;
>> +}
>> +
>> +/* Release the DSP processor from reset */
>> +static int k3_dsp_rproc_release(struct k3_dsp_rproc *kproc)
>> +{
>> +	struct device *dev = kproc->dev;
>> +	int ret;
>> +
>> +	ret = kproc->ti_sci->ops.dev_ops.get_device(kproc->ti_sci,
>> +						   kproc->ti_sci_id);
> 
> Indentation problem.

Thanks for catching, will fix.

> 
>> +	if (ret) {
>> +		dev_err(dev, "module-reset deassert failed, ret = %d\n", ret);
>> +		return ret;
>> +	}
>> +
>> +	ret = reset_control_deassert(kproc->reset);
>> +	if (ret) {
>> +		dev_err(dev, "local-reset deassert failed, ret = %d\n", ret);
>> +		if (kproc->ti_sci->ops.dev_ops.put_device(kproc->ti_sci,
>> +							  kproc->ti_sci_id))
>> +			dev_warn(dev, "module-reset assert back failed\n");
>> +	}
>> +
>> +	return ret;
>> +}
>> +
>> +/*
>> + * Power up the DSP remote processor.
>> + *
>> + * This function will be invoked only after the firmware for this rproc
>> + * was loaded, parsed successfully, and all of its resource requirements
>> + * were met.
>> + */
>> +static int k3_dsp_rproc_start(struct rproc *rproc)
>> +{
>> +	struct k3_dsp_rproc *kproc = rproc->priv;
>> +	struct mbox_client *client = &kproc->client;
>> +	struct device *dev = kproc->dev;
>> +	u32 boot_addr;
>> +	int ret;
>> +
>> +	client->dev = dev;
>> +	client->tx_done = NULL;
>> +	client->rx_callback = k3_dsp_rproc_mbox_callback;
>> +	client->tx_block = false;
>> +	client->knows_txdone = false;
>> +
>> +	kproc->mbox = mbox_request_channel(client, 0);
>> +	if (IS_ERR(kproc->mbox)) {
>> +		ret = -EBUSY;
>> +		dev_err(dev, "mbox_request_channel failed: %ld\n",
>> +			PTR_ERR(kproc->mbox));
>> +		return ret;
>> +	}
>> +
>> +	/*
>> +	 * Ping the remote processor, this is only for sanity-sake for now;
>> +	 * there is no functional effect whatsoever.
>> +	 *
>> +	 * Note that the reply will _not_ arrive immediately: this message
>> +	 * will wait in the mailbox fifo until the remote processor is booted.
>> +	 */
>> +	ret = mbox_send_message(kproc->mbox, (void *)RP_MBOX_ECHO_REQUEST);
>> +	if (ret < 0) {
>> +		dev_err(dev, "mbox_send_message failed: %d\n", ret);
>> +		goto put_mbox;
>> +	}
>> +
>> +	boot_addr = rproc->bootaddr;
>> +	if (boot_addr & (kproc->data->boot_align_addr - 1)) {
>> +		dev_err(dev, "invalid boot address 0x%x, must be aligned on a 0x%x boundary\n",
>> +			boot_addr, kproc->data->boot_align_addr);
>> +		ret = -EINVAL;
>> +		goto put_mbox;
>> +	}
>> +
>> +	dev_err(dev, "booting DSP core using boot addr = 0x%x\n", boot_addr);
>> +	ret = ti_sci_proc_set_config(kproc->tsp, boot_addr, 0, 0);
>> +	if (ret)
>> +		goto put_mbox;
>> +
>> +	ret = k3_dsp_rproc_release(kproc);
>> +	if (ret)
>> +		goto put_mbox;
>> +
>> +	return 0;
>> +
>> +put_mbox:
>> +	mbox_free_channel(kproc->mbox);
>> +	return ret;
>> +}
>> +
>> +/*
>> + * Stop the DSP remote processor.
>> + *
>> + * This function puts the DSP processor into reset, and finishes processing
>> + * of any pending messages.
>> + */
>> +static int k3_dsp_rproc_stop(struct rproc *rproc)
>> +{
>> +	struct k3_dsp_rproc *kproc = rproc->priv;
>> +
>> +	mbox_free_channel(kproc->mbox);
>> +
>> +	k3_dsp_rproc_reset(kproc);
>> +
>> +	return 0;
>> +}
>> +
>> +/*
>> + * Custom function to translate a DSP device address (internal RAMs only) to a
>> + * kernel virtual address.  The DSPs can access their RAMs at either an internal
>> + * address visible only from a DSP, or at the SoC-level bus address. Both these
>> + * addresses need to be looked through for translation. The translated addresses
>> + * can be used either by the remoteproc core for loading (when using kernel
>> + * remoteproc loader), or by any rpmsg bus drivers.
>> + */
>> +static void *k3_dsp_rproc_da_to_va(struct rproc *rproc, u64 da, size_t len)
>> +{
>> +	struct k3_dsp_rproc *kproc = rproc->priv;
>> +	void __iomem *va = NULL;
>> +	phys_addr_t bus_addr;
>> +	u32 dev_addr, offset;
>> +	size_t size;
>> +	int i;
>> +
>> +	if (len == 0)
>> +		return NULL;
>> +
>> +	for (i = 0; i < kproc->num_mems; i++) {
>> +		bus_addr = kproc->mem[i].bus_addr;
>> +		dev_addr = kproc->mem[i].dev_addr;
>> +		size = kproc->mem[i].size;
>> +
>> +		if (da < KEYSTONE_RPROC_LOCAL_ADDRESS_MASK) {
>> +			/* handle DSP-view addresses */
>> +			if (da >= dev_addr &&
>> +			    ((da + len) <= (dev_addr + size))) {
>> +				offset = da - dev_addr;
>> +				va = kproc->mem[i].cpu_addr + offset;
>> +				return (__force void *)va;
>> +			}
>> +		} else {
>> +			/* handle SoC-view addresses */
>> +			if (da >= bus_addr &&
>> +			    (da + len) <= (bus_addr + size)) {
>> +				offset = da - bus_addr;
>> +				va = kproc->mem[i].cpu_addr + offset;
>> +				return (__force void *)va;
>> +			}
>> +		}
>> +	}
>> +
>> +	/* handle static DDR reserved memory regions */
>> +	for (i = 0; i < kproc->num_rmems; i++) {
>> +		dev_addr = kproc->rmem[i].dev_addr;
>> +		size = kproc->rmem[i].size;
>> +
>> +		if (da >= dev_addr && ((da + len) <= (dev_addr + size))) {
>> +			offset = da - dev_addr;
>> +			va = kproc->rmem[i].cpu_addr + offset;
>> +			return (__force void *)va;
>> +		}
>> +	}
>> +
>> +	return NULL;
>> +}
>> +
>> +static const struct rproc_ops k3_dsp_rproc_ops = {
>> +	.start		= k3_dsp_rproc_start,
>> +	.stop		= k3_dsp_rproc_stop,
>> +	.kick		= k3_dsp_rproc_kick,
>> +	.da_to_va	= k3_dsp_rproc_da_to_va,
>> +};
>> +
>> +static const char *k3_dsp_rproc_get_firmware(struct device *dev)
>> +{
>> +	const char *fw_name;
>> +	int ret;
>> +
>> +	ret = of_property_read_string(dev->of_node, "firmware-name",
>> +				      &fw_name);
>> +	if (ret) {
>> +		dev_err(dev, "failed to parse firmware-name property, ret = %d\n",
>> +			ret);
>> +		return ERR_PTR(ret);
>> +	}
>> +
>> +	return fw_name;
>> +}
> 
> The above is a carbon copy of k3_r5_rproc_get_firmware().  Please reuse the same
> function.

Yeah, I can add this as a common helper to rproc core, would be useful 
beyond just the TI rproc drivers.

> 
>> +
>> +static int k3_dsp_rproc_of_get_memories(struct platform_device *pdev,
>> +					struct k3_dsp_rproc *kproc)
>> +{
>> +	const struct k3_dsp_dev_data *data = kproc->data;
>> +	struct device *dev = &pdev->dev;
>> +	struct resource *res;
>> +	int num_mems = 0;
>> +	int i;
>> +
>> +	num_mems = kproc->data->num_mems;
>> +	kproc->mem = devm_kcalloc(kproc->dev, num_mems,
>> +				  sizeof(*kproc->mem), GFP_KERNEL);
>> +	if (!kproc->mem)
>> +		return -ENOMEM;
>> +
>> +	for (i = 0; i < num_mems; i++) {
>> +		res = platform_get_resource_byname(pdev, IORESOURCE_MEM,
>> +						   data->mems[i].name);
>> +		if (!res) {
>> +			dev_err(dev, "found no memory resource for %s\n",
>> +				data->mems[i].name);
>> +			return -EINVAL;
>> +		}
>> +		if (!devm_request_mem_region(dev, res->start,
>> +					     resource_size(res),
>> +					     dev_name(dev))) {
>> +			dev_err(dev, "could not request %s region for resource\n",
>> +				data->mems[i].name);
>> +			return -EBUSY;
>> +		}
>> +
>> +		kproc->mem[i].cpu_addr = devm_ioremap_wc(dev, res->start,
>> +							 resource_size(res));
>> +		if (IS_ERR(kproc->mem[i].cpu_addr)) {
>> +			dev_err(dev, "failed to map %s memory\n",
>> +				data->mems[i].name);
>> +			return PTR_ERR(kproc->mem[i].cpu_addr);
>> +		}
>> +		kproc->mem[i].bus_addr = res->start;
>> +		kproc->mem[i].dev_addr = data->mems[i].dev_addr;
>> +		kproc->mem[i].size = resource_size(res);
>> +
>> +		dev_dbg(dev, "memory %8s: bus addr %pa size 0x%zx va %pK da 0x%x\n",
>> +			data->mems[i].name, &kproc->mem[i].bus_addr,
>> +			kproc->mem[i].size, kproc->mem[i].cpu_addr,
>> +			kproc->mem[i].dev_addr);
>> +
>> +		/* zero out memories to start in a pristine state */
>> +		/*
>> +		 * FIXME: comment out until kernel crash is fixed, possible
>> +		 * issue with local resets.
>> +		 * memset((__force void *)kproc->mem[i].cpu_addr, 0,
>> +		 *      kproc->mem[i].size);
>> +		 */
> 
> Things still work without zero'ing out the memory?  As such is it mandatory to
> do so? Function k3_r5_core_of_get_internal_memories does not do a memset().  And
> didn't Peng also had this problem?

This is a stale comment, I will clean this up. The zeroing out is not 
strictly needed, it is only to ensure that the DSPs are started in a 
pristine condition. The issue is unrelated to what Peng reported, it is 
not the ARM memset issue (which won't be an issue since I am already 
using the ioremap_wc variant), but rather related to device being 
powered-on to be able to access the DSP internal memories from ARM. This 
won't be powered on at the time this function is invoked anyway. The R5F 
does needs to memzero it for ECC reasons, and does so in the 
k3_r5_rproc_prepare().

> 
>> +	}
>> +	kproc->num_mems = num_mems;
>> +
>> +	return 0;
>> +}
>> +
>> +static int k3_dsp_reserved_mem_init(struct k3_dsp_rproc *kproc)
>> +{
>> +	struct device *dev = kproc->dev;
>> +	struct device_node *np = dev->of_node;
>> +	struct device_node *rmem_np;
>> +	struct reserved_mem *rmem;
>> +	int num_rmems;
>> +	int ret, i;
>> +
>> +	num_rmems = of_property_count_elems_of_size(np, "memory-region",
>> +						    sizeof(phandle));
>> +	if (num_rmems <= 0) {
>> +		dev_err(dev, "device does not reserved memory regions, ret = %d\n",
>> +			num_rmems);
>> +		return -EINVAL;
>> +	}
>> +	if (num_rmems < 2) {
>> +		dev_err(dev, "device needs atleast two memory regions to be defined, num = %d\n",
>> +			num_rmems);
>> +		return -EINVAL;
>> +	}
>> +
>> +	/* use reserved memory region 0 for vring DMA allocations */
>> +	ret = of_reserved_mem_device_init_by_idx(dev, np, 0);
>> +	if (ret) {
>> +		dev_err(dev, "device cannot initialize DMA pool, ret = %d\n",
>> +			ret);
>> +		return ret;
>> +	}
>> +
>> +	num_rmems--;
>> +	kproc->rmem = kcalloc(num_rmems, sizeof(*kproc->rmem), GFP_KERNEL);
>> +	if (!kproc->rmem) {
>> +		ret = -ENOMEM;
>> +		goto release_rmem;
>> +	}
>> +
>> +	/* use remaining reserved memory regions for static carveouts */
>> +	for (i = 0; i < num_rmems; i++) {
>> +		rmem_np = of_parse_phandle(np, "memory-region", i + 1);
>> +		if (!rmem_np) {
>> +			ret = -EINVAL;
>> +			goto unmap_rmem;
>> +		}
>> +
>> +		rmem = of_reserved_mem_lookup(rmem_np);
>> +		if (!rmem) {
>> +			of_node_put(rmem_np);
>> +			ret = -EINVAL;
>> +			goto unmap_rmem;
>> +		}
>> +		of_node_put(rmem_np);
>> +
>> +		kproc->rmem[i].bus_addr = rmem->base;
>> +		/* 64-bit address regions currently not supported */
>> +		kproc->rmem[i].dev_addr = (u32)rmem->base;
>> +		kproc->rmem[i].size = rmem->size;
>> +		kproc->rmem[i].cpu_addr = ioremap_wc(rmem->base, rmem->size);
>> +		if (!kproc->rmem[i].cpu_addr) {
>> +			dev_err(dev, "failed to map reserved memory#%d at %pa of size %pa\n",
>> +				i + 1, &rmem->base, &rmem->size);
>> +			ret = -ENOMEM;
>> +			goto unmap_rmem;
>> +		}
>> +
>> +		dev_dbg(dev, "reserved memory%d: bus addr %pa size 0x%zx va %pK da 0x%x\n",
>> +			i + 1, &kproc->rmem[i].bus_addr,
>> +			kproc->rmem[i].size, kproc->rmem[i].cpu_addr,
>> +			kproc->rmem[i].dev_addr);
>> +	}
>> +	kproc->num_rmems = num_rmems;
>> +
>> +	return 0;
>> +
>> +unmap_rmem:
>> +	for (i--; i >= 0; i--) {
>> +		if (kproc->rmem[i].cpu_addr)
>> +			iounmap(kproc->rmem[i].cpu_addr);
>> +	}
>> +	kfree(kproc->rmem);
>> +release_rmem:
>> +	of_reserved_mem_device_release(kproc->dev);
>> +	return ret;
>> +}
> 
> Other than the type of structure passed to the function, this is an exact
> replica of k3_r5_reserved_mem_init().  Do you foresee either of them changing
> to a point where reusing code would be counter productive?  I think we are right
> on the edge where duplication is better than using the same function.

Yeah, nothing at the moment. The number of regions can change, I have 
not enabled the support for addresses beyond 32-bit atm, so that is 
another factor.

> 
>> +
>> +static void k3_dsp_reserved_mem_exit(struct k3_dsp_rproc *kproc)
>> +{
>> +	int i;
>> +
>> +	for (i = 0; i < kproc->num_rmems; i++)
>> +		iounmap(kproc->rmem[i].cpu_addr);
>> +	kfree(kproc->rmem);
>> +
>> +	of_reserved_mem_device_release(kproc->dev);
>> +}
>> +
>> +static
>> +struct ti_sci_proc *k3_dsp_rproc_of_get_tsp(struct device *dev,
>> +					    const struct ti_sci_handle *sci)
>> +{
>> +	struct ti_sci_proc *tsp;
>> +	u32 temp[2];
>> +	int ret;
>> +
>> +	ret = of_property_read_u32_array(dev->of_node, "ti,sci-proc-ids",
>> +					 temp, 2);
>> +	if (ret < 0)
>> +		return ERR_PTR(ret);
>> +
>> +	tsp = kzalloc(sizeof(*tsp), GFP_KERNEL);
>> +	if (!tsp)
>> +		return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
>> +
>> +	tsp->dev = dev;
>> +	tsp->sci = sci;
>> +	tsp->ops = &sci->ops.proc_ops;
>> +	tsp->proc_id = temp[0];
>> +	tsp->host_id = temp[1];
>> +
>> +	return tsp;
>> +}
> 
> Contrary to k3_dsp_reserved_mem_init(), this one can definitely be reused for
> both c66 and r5.

Yeah, but is it worth it introduce a common module for one function? 
Little bit large to define this as an inline function like I have done 
with most of the ti_sci_proc helpers.

> 
>> +
>> +static int k3_dsp_rproc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>> +{
>> +	struct device *dev = &pdev->dev;
>> +	struct device_node *np = dev->of_node;
>> +	const struct k3_dsp_dev_data *data;
>> +	struct k3_dsp_rproc *kproc;
>> +	struct rproc *rproc;
>> +	const char *fw_name;
>> +	int ret = 0;
>> +	int ret1;
>> +
>> +	data = of_device_get_match_data(dev);
>> +	if (!data)
>> +		return -ENODEV;
>> +
>> +	fw_name = k3_dsp_rproc_get_firmware(dev);
>> +	if (IS_ERR(fw_name))
>> +		return PTR_ERR(fw_name);
>> +
>> +	rproc = rproc_alloc(dev, dev_name(dev), &k3_dsp_rproc_ops, fw_name,
>> +			    sizeof(*kproc));
>> +	if (!rproc)
>> +		return -ENOMEM;
>> +
>> +	rproc->has_iommu = false;
>> +	rproc->recovery_disabled = true;
>> +	kproc = rproc->priv;
>> +	kproc->rproc = rproc;
>> +	kproc->dev = dev;
>> +	kproc->data = data;
>> +
>> +	kproc->ti_sci = ti_sci_get_by_phandle(np, "ti,sci");
>> +	if (IS_ERR(kproc->ti_sci)) {
>> +		ret = PTR_ERR(kproc->ti_sci);
>> +		if (ret != -EPROBE_DEFER) {
>> +			dev_err(dev, "failed to get ti-sci handle, ret = %d\n",
>> +				ret);
>> +		}
>> +		kproc->ti_sci = NULL;
>> +		goto free_rproc;
>> +	}
>> +
>> +	ret = of_property_read_u32(np, "ti,sci-dev-id", &kproc->ti_sci_id);
>> +	if (ret) {
>> +		dev_err(dev, "missing 'ti,sci-dev-id' property\n");
>> +		goto put_sci;
>> +	}
>> +
>> +	kproc->reset = devm_reset_control_get_exclusive(dev, NULL);
>> +	if (IS_ERR(kproc->reset)) {
>> +		ret = PTR_ERR(kproc->reset);
>> +		dev_err(dev, "failed to get reset, status = %d\n", ret);
>> +		goto put_sci;
>> +	}
>> +
>> +	kproc->tsp = k3_dsp_rproc_of_get_tsp(dev, kproc->ti_sci);
>> +	if (IS_ERR(kproc->tsp)) {
>> +		dev_err(dev, "failed to construct ti-sci proc control, ret = %d\n",
>> +			ret);
>> +		ret = PTR_ERR(kproc->tsp);
>> +		goto put_sci;
>> +	}
>> +
>> +	ret = ti_sci_proc_request(kproc->tsp);
>> +	if (ret < 0) {
>> +		dev_err(dev, "ti_sci_proc_request failed, ret = %d\n", ret);
>> +		goto free_tsp;
>> +	}
>> +
>> +	pm_runtime_enable(dev);
>> +	ret = pm_runtime_get_sync(dev);
> 
> What do these give you since the dev_pm_ops is not set for the
> k3_dsp_rproc_driver platform diver and there is no clock specified in the DT?

Yeah, I can drop this. Adding a clock in DT would not have made any 
difference here, but a power-domains property would have. And I don't 
use the power-domains property because of the genpd handling in driver 
core that messes with the device state.

regards
Sumahn

> 
> Thanks,
> Mathieu
> 
>> +	if (ret < 0) {
>> +		dev_err(dev, "failed to enable clock, status = %d\n", ret);
>> +		pm_runtime_put_noidle(dev);
>> +		goto disable_rpm;
>> +	}
>> +
>> +	ret = k3_dsp_rproc_of_get_memories(pdev, kproc);
>> +	if (ret)
>> +		goto disable_clk;
>> +
>> +	ret = k3_dsp_reserved_mem_init(kproc);
>> +	if (ret) {
>> +		dev_err(dev, "reserved memory init failed, ret = %d\n", ret);
>> +		goto disable_clk;
>> +	}
>> +
>> +	ret = rproc_add(rproc);
>> +	if (ret) {
>> +		dev_err(dev, "failed to add register device with remoteproc core, status = %d\n",
>> +			ret);
>> +		goto release_mem;
>> +	}
>> +
>> +	platform_set_drvdata(pdev, kproc);
>> +
>> +	return 0;
>> +
>> +release_mem:
>> +	k3_dsp_reserved_mem_exit(kproc);
>> +disable_clk:
>> +	pm_runtime_put_sync(dev);
>> +disable_rpm:
>> +	pm_runtime_disable(dev);
>> +	ret1 = ti_sci_proc_release(kproc->tsp);
>> +	if (ret1)
>> +		dev_err(dev, "failed to release proc, ret = %d\n", ret1);
>> +free_tsp:
>> +	kfree(kproc->tsp);
>> +put_sci:
>> +	ret1 = ti_sci_put_handle(kproc->ti_sci);
>> +	if (ret1)
>> +		dev_err(dev, "failed to put ti_sci handle, ret = %d\n", ret1);
>> +free_rproc:
>> +	rproc_free(rproc);
>> +	return ret;
>> +}
>> +
>> +static int k3_dsp_rproc_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
>> +{
>> +	struct k3_dsp_rproc *kproc = platform_get_drvdata(pdev);
>> +	struct device *dev = &pdev->dev;
>> +	int ret;
>> +
>> +	rproc_del(kproc->rproc);
>> +	pm_runtime_put_sync(&pdev->dev);
>> +	pm_runtime_disable(&pdev->dev);
>> +
>> +	ret = ti_sci_proc_release(kproc->tsp);
>> +	if (ret)
>> +		dev_err(dev, "failed to release proc, ret = %d\n", ret);
>> +
>> +	kfree(kproc->tsp);
>> +
>> +	ret = ti_sci_put_handle(kproc->ti_sci);
>> +	if (ret)
>> +		dev_err(dev, "failed to put ti_sci handle, ret = %d\n", ret);
>> +
>> +	k3_dsp_reserved_mem_exit(kproc);
>> +	rproc_free(kproc->rproc);
>> +
>> +	return 0;
>> +}
>> +
>> +static const struct k3_dsp_mem_data c66_mems[] = {
>> +	{ .name = "l2sram", .dev_addr = 0x800000 },
>> +	{ .name = "l1pram", .dev_addr = 0xe00000 },
>> +	{ .name = "l1dram", .dev_addr = 0xf00000 },
>> +};
>> +
>> +static const struct k3_dsp_dev_data c66_data = {
>> +	.mems = c66_mems,
>> +	.num_mems = ARRAY_SIZE(c66_mems),
>> +	.boot_align_addr = SZ_1K,
>> +	.uses_lreset = true,
>> +};
>> +
>> +static const struct of_device_id k3_dsp_of_match[] = {
>> +	{ .compatible = "ti,j721e-c66-dsp", .data = &c66_data, },
>> +	{ /* sentinel */ },
>> +};
>> +MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, k3_dsp_of_match);
>> +
>> +static struct platform_driver k3_dsp_rproc_driver = {
>> +	.probe	= k3_dsp_rproc_probe,
>> +	.remove	= k3_dsp_rproc_remove,
>> +	.driver	= {
>> +		.name = "k3-dsp-rproc",
>> +		.of_match_table = k3_dsp_of_match,
>> +	},
>> +};
>> +
>> +module_platform_driver(k3_dsp_rproc_driver);
>> +
>> +MODULE_AUTHOR("Suman Anna <s-anna@ti.com>");
>> +MODULE_LICENSE("GPL v2");
>> +MODULE_DESCRIPTION("TI K3 DSP Remoteproc driver");
>> -- 
>> 2.23.0
>>


_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

  reply	other threads:[~2020-05-13 18:14 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 31+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-03-25 20:18 [PATCH 0/3] TI K3 DSP remoteproc driver for " Suman Anna
2020-03-25 20:18 ` Suman Anna
2020-03-25 20:18 ` Suman Anna
2020-03-25 20:18 ` [PATCH 1/3] dt-bindings: remoteproc: Add bindings for C66x DSPs on TI K3 SoCs Suman Anna
2020-03-25 20:18   ` Suman Anna
2020-03-25 20:18   ` Suman Anna
2020-03-26 16:54   ` Rob Herring
2020-03-26 16:54     ` Rob Herring
2020-03-26 16:54     ` Rob Herring
2020-04-27 19:49   ` Mathieu Poirier
2020-04-27 19:49     ` Mathieu Poirier
2020-05-13 17:20     ` Suman Anna
2020-05-13 17:20       ` Suman Anna
2020-03-25 20:18 ` [PATCH 2/3] remoteproc/k3-dsp: Add a remoteproc driver of K3 C66x DSPs Suman Anna
2020-03-25 20:18   ` Suman Anna
2020-03-25 20:18   ` Suman Anna
2020-04-27 22:57   ` Mathieu Poirier
2020-04-27 22:57     ` Mathieu Poirier
2020-05-13 18:14     ` Suman Anna [this message]
2020-05-13 18:14       ` Suman Anna
2020-05-13 19:40       ` Mathieu Poirier
2020-05-13 19:40         ` Mathieu Poirier
2020-03-25 20:18 ` [PATCH 3/3] remoteproc/k3-dsp: Add support for L2RAM loading on " Suman Anna
2020-03-25 20:18   ` Suman Anna
2020-03-25 20:18   ` Suman Anna
2020-04-28 19:58   ` Mathieu Poirier
2020-04-28 19:58     ` Mathieu Poirier
2020-04-28 20:09     ` Mathieu Poirier
2020-04-28 20:09       ` Mathieu Poirier
2020-05-13 22:31       ` Suman Anna
2020-05-13 22:31         ` Suman Anna

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=908c1244-b9d8-e9bf-87d7-b60a73e98f18@ti.com \
    --to=s-anna@ti.com \
    --cc=bjorn.andersson@linaro.org \
    --cc=devicetree@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-remoteproc@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=lokeshvutla@ti.com \
    --cc=mathieu.poirier@linaro.org \
    --cc=robh+dt@kernel.org \
    --subject='Re: [PATCH 2/3] remoteproc/k3-dsp: Add a remoteproc driver of K3 C66x DSPs' \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

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.