| 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: <12a97fce-9246-18c4-78e9-e25c76b5abdd@ti.com>
Date: Thu, 28 May 2020 19:23:16 -0500
From: Suman Anna <s-anna@...com>
To: Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
CC: Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>,
Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@...aro.org>,
Lokesh Vutla <lokeshvutla@...com>,
<linux-remoteproc@...r.kernel.org>, <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/4] dt-bindings: remoteproc: Add bindings for C66x
DSPs on TI K3 SoCs
Hi Rob,
On 5/28/20 5:47 PM, Suman Anna wrote:
> Hi Rob,
>
> On 5/28/20 5:32 PM, Rob Herring wrote:
>> On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 07:10:04PM -0500, Suman Anna wrote:
>>> Some Texas Instruments K3 family of SoCs have one of more Digital Signal
>>> Processor (DSP) subsystems that are comprised of either a TMS320C66x
>>> CorePac and/or a next-generation TMS320C71x CorePac processor subsystem.
>>> Add the device tree bindings document for the C66x DSP devices on these
>>> SoCs. The added example illustrates the DT nodes for the first C66x DSP
>>> device present on the K3 J721E family of SoCs.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Suman Anna <s-anna@...com>
>>> ---
>>> v2:
>>> - Updated the example to include the root-node to fix the bot
>>> errors from v1
>>
>> Pretty sure that was not why you had errors.
>
> It is because of the default values used for #address-cells and
> #size-cells in the example_template and example_start variables used in
> the dt-extract-example script. They are 1 by default, so the generated
> template ended up with the root-node using 1, and the actual example
> using 2 resulting in the mismatch.
>
> When I updated the script to use 2 for both #address-cells and
> #size-cells, then the warnings go away. This is the reason, dtbs_check
> on my actual dts files goes through fine.
Just to clarify, the warnings were only because of the mismatched
'ranges'. If I limit the example to just the dsp node, eliminating all
ranges usage, then it passes fine.
So, you would see this with any example that uses ranges with
#address-cells and #size-cells as 2 without explicitly using the
appropriate top-level #address-cells and #size-cells.
>
>>
>>> - Added maxItems to resets, mboxes, memory-region, sram properties
>>> - Changed the ti,sci-proc-ids $ref to uint-array from uint-matrix
>>> - Addressed the minor review comments from Mathieu
>>> v1: https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/11458571/
>>>
>>> .../bindings/remoteproc/ti,k3-dsp-rproc.yaml | 190 ++++++++++++++++++
>>> 1 file changed, 190 insertions(+)
>>> create mode 100644
>>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/remoteproc/ti,k3-dsp-rproc.yaml
>>>
>>> diff --git
>>> a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/remoteproc/ti,k3-dsp-rproc.yaml
>>> b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/remoteproc/ti,k3-dsp-rproc.yaml
>>> new file mode 100644
>>> index 000000000000..cdf649655838
>>> --- /dev/null
>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/remoteproc/ti,k3-dsp-rproc.yaml
>>> @@ -0,0 +1,190 @@
>>> +# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0-only or BSD-2-Clause)
>>> +%YAML 1.2
>>> +---
>>> +$id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/remoteproc/ti,k3-dsp-rproc.yaml#
>>> +$schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml#
>>> +
>>> +title: TI K3 DSP devices
>>> +
>>> +maintainers:
>>> + - Suman Anna <s-anna@...com>
>>> +
>>> +description: |
>>> + The TI K3 family of SoCs usually have one or more TI DSP Core
>>> sub-systems
>>> + that are used to offload some of the processor-intensive tasks or
>>> algorithms,
>>> + for achieving various system level goals.
>>> +
>>> + These processor sub-systems usually contain additional sub-modules
>>> like
>>> + L1 and/or L2 caches/SRAMs, an Interrupt Controller, an external
>>> memory
>>> + controller, a dedicated local power/sleep controller etc. The DSP
>>> processor
>>> + cores in the K3 SoCs are usually either a TMS320C66x CorePac
>>> processor or a
>>> + TMS320C71x CorePac processor.
>>> +
>>> + Each DSP Core sub-system is represented as a single DT node. Each
>>> node has a
>>> + number of required or optional properties that enable the OS
>>> running on the
>>> + host processor (Arm CorePac) to perform the device management of
>>> the remote
>>> + processor and to communicate with the remote processor.
>>> +
>>> +properties:
>>> + compatible:
>>> + const: ti,j721e-c66-dsp
>>> + description:
>>> + Use "ti,j721e-c66-dsp" for C66x DSPs on K3 J721E SoCs
>>
>> What else are you going to use? There's only one compatible string. Drop
>> description.
>
> Is updated in a subsequent binding update where I added the C71 support.
See https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/11563231/.
Let me know if you prefer that I combine both of them. Any changes to
this patch will also affect the other.
>
>>
>>> +
>>> + reg:
>>> + description: |
>>> + Should contain an entry for each value in 'reg-names'.
>>> + Each entry should have the memory region's start address
>>> + and the size of the region, the representation matching
>>> + the parent node's '#address-cells' and '#size-cells' values.
>>
>> Don't need generic descriptions. That's every 'reg'.
>>
>> What you can do is an 'items' list describing what each region is.
>
> OK, I am bit confused here. I have listed the items under the reg-names,
> while using just the minItems or maxItems here. What is the convention,
> aren't reg and reg-names associative.
>
>>
>>> + minItems: 3
>>> + maxItems: 3
>>> +
>>> + reg-names:
>>> + description: |
>>> + Should contain strings with the names of the specific internal
>>> + memory regions, and should be defined in this order
>>
>> Again, drop.
>
> OK
>
>>
>>> + maxItems: 3
>>> + items:
>>> + - const: l2sram
>>> + - const: l1pram
>>> + - const: l1dram
>>> +
>>> + ti,sci:
>>> + $ref: /schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/phandle
>>> + description:
>>> + Should be a phandle to the TI-SCI System Controller node
>>> +
>>> + ti,sci-dev-id:
>>> + $ref: /schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/uint32
>>> + description: |
>>> + Should contain the TI-SCI device id corresponding to the DSP
>>> core.
>>> + Please refer to the corresponding System Controller documentation
>>> + for valid values for the DSP cores.
>>> +
>>> + ti,sci-proc-ids:
>>> + description: Should contain a single tuple of <proc_id host_id>.
>>> + allOf:
>>> + - $ref: /schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/uint32-array
>>> + - maxItems: 1
>>> + items:
>>> + items:
>>> + - description: TI-SCI processor id for the DSP core device
>>> + - description: TI-SCI host id to which processor control
>>> + ownership should be transferred to
>>
>> I assume these properties appear in multiple TI nodes? We don't need
>> them defined multiple times. Create a schema for them that you can
>> include here.
>
> Only the remoteprocs, so they are limited to this binding and one more
> R5F remoteproc binding.
Can you confirm if these are the properties you want moved - ti,sci,
ti,sci-dev-id and ti,sci-proc-ids? Any recommended path I should be
using, is remoteproc folder still fine for this?
regards
Suman
>
>>
>>> +
>>> + resets:
>>> + description: |
>>> + Should contain the phandle to the reset controller node
>>> + managing the local resets for this device, and a reset
>>> + specifier. Please refer to the following reset bindings
>>> + for the reset argument specifier,
>>> + Documentation/devicetree/bindings/reset/ti,sci-reset.txt
>>
>> Drop.
>
> Entire description or just the reference to the reset bindings file?
>
>>
>>> + maxItems: 1
>>> +
>>> + firmware-name:
>>> + description: |
>>> + Should contain the name of the default firmware image
>>> + file located on the firmware search path
>>> +
>>> + mboxes:
>>> + description: |
>>> + OMAP Mailbox specifier denoting the sub-mailbox, to be used for
>>> + communication with the remote processor. This property should
>>> match
>>> + with the sub-mailbox node used in the firmware image. The
>>> specifier
>>> + format is as per the bindings,
>>> + Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mailbox/omap-mailbox.txt
>>
>> Drop. What mailbox provider is used is outside the scope of this
>> binding.
>
> OK.
>
>>
>>> + maxItems: 1
>>> +
>>> + memory-region:
>>> + minItems: 2
>>> + maxItems: 8
>>> + description: |
>>> + phandle to the reserved memory nodes to be associated with the
>>> remoteproc
>>> + device. There should be at least two reserved memory nodes
>>> defined - the
>>> + first one would be used for dynamic DMA allocations like
>>> vrings and vring
>>> + buffers, and the remaining ones used for the firmware image
>>> sections. The
>>> + reserved memory nodes should be carveout nodes, and should be
>>> defined as
>>> + per the bindings in
>>> +
>>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/reserved-memory/reserved-memory.txt
>>
>> items:
>> - description: dynamic DMA allocations like vrings and vring buffers
>> - description: firmware image section ???
>> - description: firmware image section ???
>
> Yeah, this is scalable if we will have multiple separate DDR regions. I
> had to choose a decent maxItems value, so I chose 8. Wouldn't listing
> the individual items override the number of minItems/maxItems?
>
>>
>>> +
>>> +# Optional properties:
>>> +# --------------------
>>> +
>>> + sram:
>>> + $ref: /schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/phandle-array
>>> + minItems: 1
>>> + maxItems: 4
>>> + description: |
>>> + phandles to one or more reserved on-chip SRAM regions. The
>>> regions
>>> + should be defined as child nodes of the respective SRAM node, and
>>> + should be defined as per the generic bindings in,
>>> + Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sram/sram.yaml
>>> +
>>> +required:
>>> + - compatible
>>> + - reg
>>> + - reg-names
>>> + - ti,sci
>>> + - ti,sci-dev-id
>>> + - ti,sci-proc-ids
>>> + - resets
>>> + - firmware-name
>>> + - mboxes
>>> + - memory-region
>>> +
>>> +additionalProperties: false
>>> +
>>> +examples:
>>> + - |
>>> + / {
>>> + model = "Texas Instruments K3 J721E SoC";
>>> + compatible = "ti,j721e";
>>> + #address-cells = <2>;
>>> + #size-cells = <2>;
>>> +
>>> + /* DSP Carveout reserved memory nodes */
>>> + reserved-memory {
>>> + #address-cells = <2>;
>>> + #size-cells = <2>;
>>> + ranges;
>>> +
>>> + c66_0_dma_memory_region: c66-dma-memory@...00000 {
>>> + compatible = "shared-dma-pool";
>>> + reg = <0x00 0xa6000000 0x00 0x100000>;
>>> + no-map;
>>> + };
>>> +
>>> + c66_0_memory_region: c66-memory@...00000 {
>>> + compatible = "shared-dma-pool";
>>> + reg = <0x00 0xa6100000 0x00 0xf00000>;
>>> + no-map;
>>> + };
>>> + };
>>
>> Drop all of this. Outside the scope of this binding. And will likely
>> start failing validation as schemas become more complete.
>
> This is a complete example because of the memory-region references below.
>
>>
>>> +
>>> + cbass_main: bus@...000 {
>>
>> Drop unused labels.
>
> OK.
>
> regards
> Suman
>
>>
>>> + compatible = "simple-bus";
>>> + #address-cells = <2>;
>>> + #size-cells = <2>;
>>> + ranges = <0x00 0x00100000 0x00 0x00100000 0x00
>>> 0x00020000>, /* ctrl mmr */
>>> + <0x4d 0x80800000 0x4d 0x80800000 0x00
>>> 0x00800000>, /* C66_0 */
>>> + <0x4d 0x81800000 0x4d 0x81800000 0x00
>>> 0x00800000>; /* C66_1 */
>>> +
>>> + /* J721E C66_0 DSP node */
>>> + c66_0: dsp@...0800000 {
>>> + compatible = "ti,j721e-c66-dsp";
>>> + reg = <0x4d 0x80800000 0x00 0x00048000>,
>>> + <0x4d 0x80e00000 0x00 0x00008000>,
>>> + <0x4d 0x80f00000 0x00 0x00008000>;
>>> + reg-names = "l2sram", "l1pram", "l1dram";
>>> + ti,sci = <&dmsc>;
>>> + ti,sci-dev-id = <142>;
>>> + ti,sci-proc-ids = <0x03 0xFF>;
>>> + resets = <&k3_reset 142 1>;
>>> + firmware-name = "j7-c66_0-fw";
>>> + memory-region = <&c66_0_dma_memory_region>,
>>> + <&c66_0_memory_region>;
>>> + mboxes = <&mailbox0_cluster3 &mbox_c66_0>;
>>> + };
>>> + };
>>> + };
>>> --
>>> 2.26.0
>>>
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists