[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5C5AF77D.8020007@ti.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2019 17:04:29 +0200
From: Roger Quadros <rogerq@...com>
To: Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>,
Murali Karicheri <m-karicheri2@...com>
CC: <s-anna@...com>, <ohad@...ery.com>, <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>,
<david@...hnology.com>, <nsekhar@...com>, <t-kristo@...com>,
<nsaulnier@...com>, <jreeder@...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
On 05/02/19 18:19, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> * Murali Karicheri <m-karicheri2@...com> [190205 16:13]:
>> On 02/05/2019 10:41 AM, Roger Quadros wrote:
>>> What I'm suggesting here is that kernel remoteproc driver should have nothing to do
>>> with the other PRU's data RAM.
>>>
>>> The application driver if needs both PRUs then it can obviously access both DRAMs
>>> as it has a phandle to both PRUs.
>>>
>> That should be fine.
>
> That sounds good to me too.
>
> For dts, yeah please allocate the resources for the modules
> where the resources belong to on the PRUSS internal interconnect :)
> Devices can move around on the interconnect between SoCs and the
> modules can get swapped or added.
If you take a look at "Figure 30-1. PRU-ICSS Overview" in
http://www.tij.co.jp/jp/lit/ug/spruhz7h/spruhz7h.pdf
You can see that DRAM0 and DRAM1 are not part of PRU. That means
they shouldn't be in the PRU node then.
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