| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Message-ID: <5C5959DB.2090608@ti.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2019 11:39:39 +0200
From: Roger Quadros <rogerq@...com>
To: Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>, <s-anna@...com>
CC: <ohad@...ery.com>, <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>,
<david@...hnology.com>, <nsekhar@...com>, <t-kristo@...com>,
<nsaulnier@...com>, <jreeder@...com>, <m-karicheri2@...com>,
<woods.technical@...il.com>, <linux-omap@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-remoteproc@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
<devicetree@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 01/14] dt-bindings: remoteproc: Add TI PRUSS bindings
Hi Tony & Suman,
On 04/02/19 18:33, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> Hi,
>
> * Roger Quadros <rogerq@...com> [190204 14:23]:
>> From: Suman Anna <s-anna@...com>
> ...
>> +Example:
>> +========
>> +1. /* AM33xx PRU-ICSS */
>> +
>> + pruss: pruss@0 {
>> + compatible = "ti,am3356-pruss";
>> + reg = <0x0 0x2000>,
>> + <0x2000 0x2000>,
>> + <0x10000 0x3000>;
>> + reg-names = "dram0", "dram1",
>> + "shrdram2";
>> + #address-cells = <1>;
>> + #size-cells = <1>;
>> + ranges;
>
> Thanks for fixing up the reg ranges for the top level node.
>
> Ideally there would not even be a top level node here as
> AFAIK the whole PRUSS is a collection of devices on a PRU
> internal interconnect. So following that path a bit further..
> How about just get rid of the top level node and just do:
>
> pruss: pruss@0 {
> dram0: memory@0 {
> device_type = "memory";
> reg = <0x0 0x2000>;
> };
>
> dram1: memory@...0 {
> device_type = "memory";
> reg = <0x2000 0x2000>;
> };
Actually dram0 and dram1 are data memories for PRU0 and PRU1 respectively.
Isn't it better if they are moved to the pru node?
e.g.
pru0: pru@...00 {
compatible = "ti,am3356-pru";
reg = <0x34000 0x2000>,
<0x22000 0x400>,
<0x22400 0x100>,
<0x0 0x2000>;
reg-names = "iram", "control", "debug", "dram";
...
};
pru1: pru@...00 {
compatible = "ti,am3356-pru";
reg = <0x38000 0x2000>,
<0x24000 0x400>,
<0x24400 0x100>,
<0x2000 0x2000>;
reg-names = "iram", "control", "debug", "dram";
...
};
I think it is better to place a restriction that firmware on PRU0 cannot use data
memory of PRU1 and vice versa.
Application drivers do sometimes need to read/write to data memory. The pru_rproc
driver could provide a API for the application drivers to get virtual address of
the respective PRU's data memory.
>
> shrdram2: memory@...00 {
> device_type = "memory";
> reg = <0x10000 0x3000>;
> };
Shared RAM is not so straight forward. Both PRU firmwares and both application drivers
might need to read/write here. The area split is decided by firmware design and there
is no hardware protection to prevent from stomping on each others toes.
We need a carveout based memory allocator at least I think that can do a
allocate(base_offset, size); into shared RAM.
This could be used by pru_rproc driver at firmware load time and by application drivers
at initialization time.
Thoughts?
>
> pruss_cfg: cfg@...00 {
> ...
> };
> ...
> };
>
> If the device_type = "memory" cannot be used here for
> being specific to the top level properties, then
> there's probably some other generic property usable
> here :)
>
>> + pruss_mii_rt: mii_rt@...00 {
>> + reg = <0x32000 0x58>;
>> + };
>
> The node name should not have underscores so
> pruss_mii_rt: mii-rt@...00. Please check the others
> too, like app_node.
>
OK.
>> + app_node: app_node {
>> + prus = <&pru0>, <&pru1>;
>> + firmware-name = "pruss-app-fw", "pruss-app-fw-2";
>> + ti,pruss-gp-mux-sel = <2>, <1>;
>> + /* setup interrupts for prus:
>> + prus[0] => pru1_0: ev=16, chnl=2, host-irq=7,
>> + prus[1] => pru1_1: ev=19, chnl=1, host-irq=3 */
>> + ti,pru-interrupt-map = <0 16 2 7 >, <1 19 1 3>;
>> + }
>
> If the ti,pruss-gp-mux-sel and ti,pru-interrupt-map are
> firmware configuration options, maybe leave them out of
> the dts completely and make the app-node optional.
Yes the app-node is optional. I will mention it.
No, ti,pruss-gp-mux-sel and ti,pru-interrupt-map are not firmware options.
But these settings are application/firmware specific.
ti,pru-interrupt-map specifies the configuration to be used for the INTC interrupt
controller.
ti,pruss-gp-mux-sel is used to configure this register.
"Table 30-20. PRUSS_GPCFG0" in http://www.tij.co.jp/jp/lit/ug/spruhz7h/spruhz7h.pdf
"29:26 PR1_PRU0_GP_MUX_SEL"
It configures how the pins from the PRUSS module are routed internally
to the various modules.
see "30.2.1 PRU-ICSS I/O Interface"
and "Table 30-1. PRU-ICSS1 I/O Signals"
>
> And have a proper compatible for this node such as
> "ti,pruss-app-xyz". And this should be only set if the the
> hardware is wired up in such way that things need to be
> configured in the dts rather than by the firmware.
Yes, compatible is a required property as we need to load
the appropriate application (kernel space) driver for it.
I will fix the example.
>
> And then you can just hide mux-sel and interrupt-map
> behind the compatible property for that hardware. And
> leave them out from the dts and have the handling driver
> would set mux-sel and interrupt-map based on the
> match->data during probe.
To summarize:
I'll mark the app node as optional. Only required if a kernel
driver is required for the application.
Compatible is mandatory for app node.
ti,pruss-gp-mux-sel and ti,pru-interrupt-map are optional
for app node.
cheers,
-roger
--
Texas Instruments Finland Oy, Porkkalankatu 22, 00180 Helsinki.
Y-tunnus/Business ID: 0615521-4. Kotipaikka/Domicile: Helsinki
Powered by blists - more mailing lists