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=-7.1 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SIGNED_OFF_BY,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no 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 1184FC4346E for ; Thu, 16 Jul 2020 17:21:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC4242065E for ; Thu, 16 Jul 2020 17:21:26 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=linaro.org header.i=@linaro.org header.b="gFZyKus1" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1729124AbgGPRV0 (ORCPT ); Thu, 16 Jul 2020 13:21:26 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:45758 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1729364AbgGPRTH (ORCPT ); Thu, 16 Jul 2020 13:19:07 -0400 Received: from mail-pg1-x542.google.com (mail-pg1-x542.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::542]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 39A50C061755 for ; Thu, 16 Jul 2020 10:19:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pg1-x542.google.com with SMTP id m22so5143968pgv.9 for ; Thu, 16 Jul 2020 10:19:07 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linaro.org; s=google; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=PJplWTbP//JWBP6LiwpcydCLM3kpmqRCafKXQ2sO8HM=; b=gFZyKus1CsQMXkTyfQNTl5O+0k7AWFHlIkYaZ/5TREymgAeyqVUDm/gqS0BV7rcrsu 82GmpCSlv26mJYkIfMbStCv9Qy8zBrSoJXare02pYn4LqPE5JgZo1T7UNIT+y5MJDzkg 61blOixw6uZPHNnqnZo0H1+brKdZsu0on9SNMnH42bxqRCxrCX/yAR8sXJJaheYfKIBL mPKSk7Ve24sR4PhSPnJEgbd1z4rD0N4+dAMVEGsd25bCGZwVb5wm2SCKJH8MPXuO4LcS 7Y8N+rkP9A5ldAquSCD8DeT+G+eh7bmxGOX6VuRMyNnK+XEyu6RgnPXjjyNj+0f8Pmjo ahSA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=PJplWTbP//JWBP6LiwpcydCLM3kpmqRCafKXQ2sO8HM=; b=VS3bG1RD3cQajefrKxt2t/bWog5dUKirkZ6X+IKrMtJwdIdhBsNT9/BAL7jubJd5Nm a+ox+Llu/ksD7XSklteAvvaRlJT3CLKgfljw0fGPbJmvjNUbvgykAo7bt+M3DWnIYgnc Pj/erCkMpCOnJMtO5zdPwNIvrWWSLhMFo34MQL0gzzt7SIyj6qkYs5XAuc9s5a2g5EiM zzLfp+zRpBBWJOKcoS5gTHwgu7eSwebIjaE+3I4lqMYzPiDWT8zZzfRvnTN2s6wcpZmG LCtee2wW/zpa2fCDb21AlV5HCgI75VN1cL939+51wWvEm8vJV7quujADj3DkIdgpqMDT e4SQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533g3PlW8CgLiZpPlSikTXQKtZsNhVw8iOwrMq2HbloGQA0hB7XY aFFHnykUiFnS0kGW5zg0Hhtrbw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwJiFSQcdB6omeWjkDHMF9mbOoLcdHIviL7+KHQY8vyEQkjrY3SKAm2f71bm739lOZkfFQVGw== X-Received: by 2002:a63:1a44:: with SMTP id a4mr5211817pgm.281.1594919946664; Thu, 16 Jul 2020 10:19:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from xps15 (S0106002369de4dac.cg.shawcable.net. [68.147.8.254]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id h7sm5551458pfq.15.2020.07.16.10.19.05 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Thu, 16 Jul 2020 10:19:05 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2020 11:19:03 -0600 From: Mathieu Poirier To: Rob Herring Cc: Suman Anna , Bjorn Andersson , Lokesh Vutla , linux-remoteproc@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, stefanos@xilinx.com, BLEVINSK@xilinx.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] dt-bindings: remoteproc: Add bindings for R5F subsystem on TI K3 SoCs Message-ID: <20200716171903.GA3286345@xps15> References: <20200630024922.32491-1-s-anna@ti.com> <20200630024922.32491-2-s-anna@ti.com> <20200714171553.GA2522956@bogus> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20200714171553.GA2522956@bogus> Sender: devicetree-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: devicetree@vger.kernel.org Hi Rob, On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 11:15:53AM -0600, Rob Herring wrote: > On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 09:49:19PM -0500, Suman Anna wrote: > > The Texas Instruments K3 family of SoCs have one or more dual-core > > Arm Cortex R5F processor subsystems/clusters (R5FSS). The clusters > > can be split between multiple voltage domains as well. Add the device > > tree bindings document for these R5F subsystem devices. These R5F > > processors do not have an MMU, and so require fixed memory carveout > > regions matching the firmware image addresses. The nodes require more > > than one memory region, with the first memory region used for DMA > > allocations at runtime. The remaining memory regions are reserved > > and are used for the loading and running of the R5F remote processors. > > The R5F processors can also optionally use any internal on-chip SRAM > > memories either for executing code or using it as fast-access data. > > > > The added example illustrates the DT nodes for the single R5FSS device > > present on K3 AM65x family of SoCs. > > > > Signed-off-by: Suman Anna > > --- > > v2: > > - Renamed "lockstep-mode" property to "ti,cluster-mode" > > I don't think that's a move in the right direction given this is at > least partially a standard feature. > > As I said before, I'm very hesistant to accept anything here given I > know the desires and activity to define 'system Devicetrees' of which > TI is participating. While maybe an rproc node is sufficient for a > DSP, it seems multiple vendors have R cores and want to define them in > system DT. > > Though the system DT effort has not yet given any thought to what is the > view of one processor or instance to another instance (which is what > this binding is). We'll still need something defined for that, but I'd > expect that to be dependent on what is defined for system DT. Efforts related to the definition of the system DT are under way, something I expect to keep going on for some time to come. I agree with the need to use the system DT to define remote processors and I look forward to the time we can do so. That being said we need to find a concensus on how to move forward with patches that are ready to be merged. What is your opinion on that? Thanks, Mathieu > > Rob