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=-8.6 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,NICE_REPLY_A,SIGNED_OFF_BY,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, 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 DF461C433E0 for ; Mon, 10 Aug 2020 16:53:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 96EE820829 for ; Mon, 10 Aug 2020 16:53:04 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=ti.com header.i=@ti.com header.b="tZU4MM/S" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726910AbgHJQxE (ORCPT ); Mon, 10 Aug 2020 12:53:04 -0400 Received: from fllv0015.ext.ti.com ([198.47.19.141]:35346 "EHLO fllv0015.ext.ti.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726720AbgHJQxD (ORCPT ); Mon, 10 Aug 2020 12:53:03 -0400 Received: from fllv0034.itg.ti.com ([10.64.40.246]) by fllv0015.ext.ti.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 07AGqqfd104330; Mon, 10 Aug 2020 11:52:52 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ti.com; s=ti-com-17Q1; t=1597078372; bh=YTBNSuZB1ViSASi+2W5j6KH0rLJ0ephtkfszy/zEjVg=; h=Subject:From:To:CC:References:Date:In-Reply-To; b=tZU4MM/StuZckikVJtsvPHNAs5WxAZEvCytqpDar+fxaCplcRREoRzF1ECr9WbcnD Wvl1dqcEv4USEx8O9kXYXWA5NgO89WqYAIUqNH6bh9nPd7EwTwg78m45xpzBg4iVTo a+zN/rqlFMP9W4l5BtdiFJC10mljni9qh7J9SiLI= Received: from DLEE100.ent.ti.com (dlee100.ent.ti.com [157.170.170.30]) by fllv0034.itg.ti.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 07AGqpUv107641 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Mon, 10 Aug 2020 11:52:51 -0500 Received: from DLEE111.ent.ti.com (157.170.170.22) by DLEE100.ent.ti.com (157.170.170.30) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.1979.3; Mon, 10 Aug 2020 11:52:51 -0500 Received: from fllv0040.itg.ti.com (10.64.41.20) by DLEE111.ent.ti.com (157.170.170.22) 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; Mon, 10 Aug 2020 11:52:51 -0500 Received: from [10.250.34.248] (ileax41-snat.itg.ti.com [10.172.224.153]) by fllv0040.itg.ti.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 07AGqpNQ055556; Mon, 10 Aug 2020 11:52:51 -0500 Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] dt-bindings: remoteproc: Add bindings for R5F subsystem on TI K3 SoCs From: Suman Anna To: Stefano Stabellini , Mathieu Poirier , Rob Herring CC: Bjorn Andersson , Lokesh Vutla , , , , , , , References: <20200630024922.32491-1-s-anna@ti.com> <20200630024922.32491-2-s-anna@ti.com> <20200714171553.GA2522956@bogus> <20200716171903.GA3286345@xps15> Message-ID: <8ba1f240-df9a-d63e-5c05-1a4a13e03213@ti.com> Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2020 11:52:51 -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: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit 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 Rob, On 7/27/20 5:39 PM, Suman Anna wrote: > Hi Rob, > > On 7/16/20 2:43 PM, Stefano Stabellini wrote: >> On Thu, 16 Jul 2020, Mathieu Poirier wrote: >>> 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. > > Ping on this discussion. TI is participating on the System DT evolution in general, but we don't have any plans to use DTS on our remote cores. We have our own auto-generated Chip-Support-Library (CSL) code that gets used on our firmwares. > > Also, most of the properties I defined are rather standard properties. I have posted a revised v3 [1] after the common ti,sci properties refactoring. This series is only waiting on the bindings. I am happy to change any ti, prefixed properties. I had one open question [2] that I am waiting for a response from you for identifying the R5F Core. Ping on this. regards Suman > > regards > Suman > > [1] https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/11679331/ > [2] https://patchwork.kernel.org/comment/23273441/ > >>>> >>>> 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. >> >> I'll take this opportunity to add that I should be able to publicly >> present a System Device Tree proposal for this during the next call (the >> next one after the call early next week that has already a full agenda.) >> >> >>> 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? >> >> In my opinion we don't have to necessarily wait for System Device Tree >> to make progress with those if they look OK. >> >