Message-ID: <YLBgwkiT9PE3Cu82@builder.lan>
Date:   Thu, 27 May 2021 22:17:22 -0500
From:   Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>
To:     Suman Anna <s-anna@...com>
Cc:     Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@...aro.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.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 1/2] dt-bindings: remoteproc: k3-r5f: Update bindings
 for AM64x SoCs

On Mon 24 May 10:47 CDT 2021, Suman Anna wrote:

> On 5/21/21 3:40 PM, Mathieu Poirier wrote:
> > Hi suman,
> > 
> > On Wed, May 12, 2021 at 09:47:44PM -0500, Suman Anna wrote:
> >> Hi Rob,
> >>
> >> On 4/19/21 8:55 AM, Suman Anna wrote:
> >>> Hi Rob,
> >>>
> >>> On 3/27/21 9:31 AM, Suman Anna wrote:
> >>>> The K3 AM64x SoCs have two dual-core Arm R5F clusters/subsystems, with
> >>>> 2 R5F cores each, both in the MAIN voltage domain.
> >>>>
> >>>> These clusters are a revised IP version compared to those present on
> >>>> J721E and J7200 SoCs, and supports a new "Single-CPU" mode instead of
> >>>> LockStep mode. Update the K3 R5F remoteproc bindings with the compatible
> >>>> info relevant to these R5F clusters/subsystems on K3 AM64x SoCs.
> >>>>
> >>>> Signed-off-by: Suman Anna <s-anna@...com>
> >>>> ---
> >>>> v2: No changes
> >>>>
> >>>>  .../bindings/remoteproc/ti,k3-r5f-rproc.yaml  | 31 ++++++++++++++++---
> >>>
> >>> Looks like this patch has fallen through the cracks, can you please review and
> >>> give your ack for this patch so that Bjorn can pick up the series for 5.13?
> >>
> >> Gentle reminder, do you have any comments on this patch. Appreciate your ack so
> >> that we can get this in for 5.14?
> > 
> > If memory serves me well Rob indicated that he would not review or comment on
> > bindings related to multi-core remote processors.  On the flip side he also
> > mentioned that he would not object to their presence.  And since this is an
> > increment to an existing binding rather than a new one, I think it is fair for
> > us to pick it up.  
> > 
> > Rob - please intervene if my recollections are not accurate and accept my honest
> > apologies.  Otherwise: 
> > 
> > Reviewed-by: Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@...aro.org> 
> > 
> 
> Thank you Mathieu.
> 
> Bjorn,
> Is it possible for you to give an immutable branch with just this bindings so we
> can add the R5F nodes as well and avoid any checkpatch warnings on Nishanth's
> tree with our K3 dts patches?
> 

Hi Suman,

That sounds rather ambitious, but you can now find this at:
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/andersson/remoteproc.git/tag/?h=20210327143117.1840-2-s-anna@ti.com

Regards,
Bjorn

> regards
> Suman
> 
> >>
> >> regards
> >> Suman
> >>
> >>>
> >>> regards
> >>> Suman
> >>>
> >>>>  1 file changed, 26 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> >>>>
> >>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/remoteproc/ti,k3-r5f-rproc.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/remoteproc/ti,k3-r5f-rproc.yaml
> >>>> index d905d614502b..130fbaacc4b1 100644
> >>>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/remoteproc/ti,k3-r5f-rproc.yaml
> >>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/remoteproc/ti,k3-r5f-rproc.yaml
> >>>> @@ -14,8 +14,12 @@ description: |
> >>>>    processor subsystems/clusters (R5FSS). The dual core cluster can be used
> >>>>    either in a LockStep mode providing safety/fault tolerance features or in a
> >>>>    Split mode providing two individual compute cores for doubling the compute
> >>>> -  capacity. These are used together with other processors present on the SoC
> >>>> -  to achieve various system level goals.
> >>>> +  capacity on most SoCs. These are used together with other processors present
> >>>> +  on the SoC to achieve various system level goals.
> >>>> +
> >>>> +  AM64x SoCs do not support LockStep mode, but rather a new non-safety mode
> >>>> +  called "Single-CPU" mode, where only Core0 is used, but with ability to use
> >>>> +  Core1's TCMs as well.
> >>>>  
> >>>>    Each Dual-Core R5F sub-system is represented as a single DTS node
> >>>>    representing the cluster, with a pair of child DT nodes representing
> >>>> @@ -33,6 +37,7 @@ properties:
> >>>>        - ti,am654-r5fss
> >>>>        - ti,j721e-r5fss
> >>>>        - ti,j7200-r5fss
> >>>> +      - ti,am64-r5fss
> >>>>  
> >>>>    power-domains:
> >>>>      description: |
> >>>> @@ -56,11 +61,12 @@ properties:
> >>>>  
> >>>>    ti,cluster-mode:
> >>>>      $ref: /schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/uint32
> >>>> -    enum: [0, 1]
> >>>>      description: |
> >>>>        Configuration Mode for the Dual R5F cores within the R5F cluster.
> >>>> -      Should be either a value of 1 (LockStep mode) or 0 (Split mode),
> >>>> -      default is LockStep mode if omitted.
> >>>> +      Should be either a value of 1 (LockStep mode) or 0 (Split mode) on
> >>>> +      most SoCs (AM65x, J721E, J7200), default is LockStep mode if omitted;
> >>>> +      and should be either a value of 0 (Split mode) or 2 (Single-CPU mode)
> >>>> +      on AM64x SoCs, default is Split mode if omitted.
> >>>>  
> >>>>  # R5F Processor Child Nodes:
> >>>>  # ==========================
> >>>> @@ -97,6 +103,7 @@ patternProperties:
> >>>>            - ti,am654-r5f
> >>>>            - ti,j721e-r5f
> >>>>            - ti,j7200-r5f
> >>>> +          - ti,am64-r5f
> >>>>  
> >>>>        reg:
> >>>>          items:
> >>>> @@ -198,6 +205,20 @@ patternProperties:
> >>>>  
> >>>>      unevaluatedProperties: false
> >>>>  
> >>>> +if:
> >>>> +  properties:
> >>>> +    compatible:
> >>>> +      enum:
> >>>> +        - ti,am64-r5fss
> >>>> +then:
> >>>> +  properties:
> >>>> +    ti,cluster-mode:
> >>>> +      enum: [0, 2]
> >>>> +else:
> >>>> +  properties:
> >>>> +    ti,cluster-mode:
> >>>> +      enum: [0, 1]
> >>>> +
> >>>>  required:
> >>>>    - compatible
> >>>>    - power-domains
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
> 

Powered by blists - more mailing lists