| 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: <20200511221755.GA13585@bogus>
Date: Mon, 11 May 2020 17:17:55 -0500
From: Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
To: Ben Levinsky <ben.levinsky@...inx.com>
Cc: ohad@...ery.com, bjorn.andersson@...aro.org,
michal.simek@...inx.com, jollys@...inx.com, rajan.vaja@...inx.com,
mark.rutland@....com, linux-remoteproc@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Jason Wu <j.wu@...inx.com>,
Wendy Liang <jliang@...inx.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 4/5] dt-bindings: remoteproc: Add documentation for
ZynqMP R5 rproc bindings
On Fri, Apr 24, 2020 at 10:36:09AM -0700, Ben Levinsky wrote:
> Add binding for ZynqMP R5 OpenAMP.
>
> Represent the RPU domain resources in one device node. Each RPU
> processor is a subnode of the top RPU domain node.
This needs to be sorted out as part of the system DT effort that Xilinx
is working on. I can't see this binding co-existing with it.
>
> Signed-off-by: Ben Levinsky <ben.levinsky@...inx.com>
> Signed-off-by: Jason Wu <j.wu@...inx.com>
> Signed-off-by: Wendy Liang <jliang@...inx.com>
> Signed-off-by: Michal Simek <michal.simek@...inx.com>
> ---
> Changes since v2:
> - update zynqmp_r5 yaml parsing to not raise warnings for extra
> information in children of R5 node. The warning "node has a unit
> name, but no reg or ranges property" will still be raised though
> as this particular node is needed to describe the
> '#address-cells' and '#size-cells' information.
> Changes since 3:
> - remove warning '/example-0/rpu@...a0000/r5@0:
> node has a unit name, but no reg or ranges property'
> by adding reg to r5 node.
> ---
>
> .../remoteproc/xilinx,zynqmp-r5-remoteproc.yaml | 127 +++++++++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 127 insertions(+)
> create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/remoteproc/xilinx,zynqmp-r5-remoteproc.yaml
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/remoteproc/xilinx,zynqmp-r5-remoteproc.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/remoteproc/xilinx,zynqmp-r5-remoteproc.yaml
> new file mode 100644
> index 0000000..41520b6
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/remoteproc/xilinx,zynqmp-r5-remoteproc.yaml
> @@ -0,0 +1,127 @@
> +# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0 OR BSD-2-Clause)
> +%YAML 1.2
> +---
> +$id: "http://devicetree.org/schemas/remoteproc/xilinx,zynqmp-r5-remoteproc.yaml#"
> +$schema: "http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml#"
> +
> +title: Xilinx R5 remote processor controller bindings
> +
> +description:
> + This document defines the binding for the remoteproc component that loads and
> + boots firmwares on the Xilinx Zynqmp and Versal family chipset.
> +
> +maintainers:
> + - Ed Mooring <ed.mooring@...inx.com>
> + - Ben Levinsky <ben.levinsky@...inx.com>
> +
> +properties:
> + compatible:
> + const: "xlnx,zynqmp-r5-remoteproc-1.0"
> +
> + core_conf:
> + description:
> + R5 core configuration (valid string - split or lock-step)
> + maxItems: 1
> +
> + interrupts:
> + description:
> + Interrupt mapping for remoteproc IPI. It is required if the
> + user uses the remoteproc driver with the RPMsg kernel driver.
> + maxItems: 6
> +
> + memory-region:
> + maxItems: 4
> + minItems: 4
> + pnode-id:
> + maxItems: 1
What is this?
> + mboxes:
> + maxItems: 2
> + mbox-names:
> + maxItems: 2
> +
> + r5@0:
> + type: object
> + required:
> + - '#address-cells'
> + - '#size-cells'
> + - pnode-id
> +examples:
> + - |
> + reserved-memory {
> + #address-cells = <1>;
> + #size-cells = <1>;
> + ranges;
> + rpu0vdev0vring0: rpu0vdev0vring0@...40000 {
> + no-map;
> + reg = <0x3ed40000 0x4000>;
> + };
> + rpu0vdev0vring1: rpu0vdev0vring1@...44000 {
> + no-map;
> + reg = <0x3ed44000 0x4000>;
> + };
> + rpu0vdev0buffer: rpu0vdev0buffer@...48000 {
> + no-map;
> + reg = <0x3ed48000 0x100000>;
> + };
> + rproc_0_reserved: rproc@...000000 {
> + no-map;
> + reg = <0x3ed00000 0x40000>;
> + };
> + };
> + rpu: rpu@...a0000 {
> + compatible = "xlnx,zynqmp-r5-remoteproc-1.0";
> + #address-cells = <1>;
> + #size-cells = <1>;
> + ranges;
> + core_conf = "split";
If split, then where is the 2nd core?
> + reg = <0xFF9A0000 0x10000>;
> + r5_0: r5@0 {
Unit-addresses are based on 'reg' values.
> + ranges;
> + #address-cells = <1>;
> + #size-cells = <1>;
> + reg = <0xFF9A0100 0x1000>;
> + memory-region = <&rproc_0_reserved>, <&rpu0vdev0buffer>, <&rpu0vdev0vring0>, <&rpu0vdev0vring1>;
> + pnode-id = <0x7>;
> + mboxes = <&ipi_mailbox_rpu0 0>, <&ipi_mailbox_rpu0 1>;
> + mbox-names = "tx", "rx";
> + tcm_0_a: tcm_0@0 {
> + #address-cells = <1>;
> + #size-cells = <1>;
> + reg = <0xFFE00000 0x10000>;
> + pnode-id = <0xf>;
These nodes probably need some sort of compatible. And don't the TCMs
have different addresses for R5 vs. the A cores?
> + };
> + tcm_0_b: tcm_0@1 {
> + #address-cells = <2>;
> + #size-cells = <2>;
> + reg = <0xFFE20000 0x10000>;
> + pnode-id = <0x10>;
> + };
> + };
> + };
> +
> +
> + zynqmp_ipi1 {
> + compatible = "xlnx,zynqmp-ipi-mailbox";
> + interrupt-parent = <&gic>;
> + interrupts = <0 29 4>;
> + xlnx,ipi-id = <7>;
> + #address-cells = <1>;
> + #size-cells = <1>;
> + ranges;
> +
> + /* APU<->RPU0 IPI mailbox controller */
> + ipi_mailbox_rpu0: mailbox@...0000 {
> + reg = <0xff990600 0x20>,
> + <0xff990620 0x20>,
> + <0xff9900c0 0x20>,
> + <0xff9900e0 0x20>;
> + reg-names = "local_request_region",
> + "local_response_region",
> + "remote_request_region",
> + "remote_response_region";
> + #mbox-cells = <1>;
> + xlnx,ipi-id = <1>;
> + };
> + };
> +
> +...
> --
> 2.7.4
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists