| 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: <d95ee066-424c-1a0b-cffd-45e16bc7f8da@amd.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2022 09:57:41 -0800
From: Tanmay Shah <tanmays@....com>
To: Devarsh Thakkar <devarsht@...com>, andersson@...nel.org,
mathieu.poirier@...aro.org, p.zabel@...gutronix.de,
linux-remoteproc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, s-anna@...com
Cc: robh+dt@...nel.org, krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org,
hnagalla@...com, praneeth@...com, nm@...com, vigneshr@...com,
a-bhatia1@...com, j-luthra@...com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] remoteproc: k3-r5: Use separate compatible string
for TI AM62 SoC family
Hi Devarsh,
Please find my comments below.
On 11/30/22 6:40 PM, Devarsh Thakkar wrote:
> CAUTION: This message has originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.
>
>
> AM62 and AM62A SoCs use single core R5F which is a new scenario
> different than the one being used with CLUSTER_MODE_SINGLECPU
> which is for utilizing a single core from a set of cores available
> in R5F cluster present in the SoC.
>
> To support this single core scenario map it with
> newly defined CLUSTER_MODE_NONE and use it when
> compatible is set to ti,am62-r5fss.
>
> Signed-off-by: Devarsh Thakkar <devarsht@...com>
> ---
> V2: Fix indentation and ordering issues as per review comments
> ---
> drivers/remoteproc/ti_k3_r5_remoteproc.c | 55 ++++++++++++++++++------
> 1 file changed, 43 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/ti_k3_r5_remoteproc.c b/drivers/remoteproc/ti_k3_r5_remoteproc.c
> index 0481926c6975..9698b29a0b56 100644
> --- a/drivers/remoteproc/ti_k3_r5_remoteproc.c
> +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/ti_k3_r5_remoteproc.c
> @@ -74,11 +74,13 @@ struct k3_r5_mem {
> * Split mode : AM65x, J721E, J7200 and AM64x SoCs
> * LockStep mode : AM65x, J721E and J7200 SoCs
> * Single-CPU mode : AM64x SoCs only
> + * None : AM62x, AM62A SoCs
> */
> enum cluster_mode {
> CLUSTER_MODE_SPLIT = 0,
> CLUSTER_MODE_LOCKSTEP,
> CLUSTER_MODE_SINGLECPU,
> + CLUSTER_MODE_NONE,
> };
>
> /**
> @@ -86,11 +88,13 @@ enum cluster_mode {
> * @tcm_is_double: flag to denote the larger unified TCMs in certain modes
> * @tcm_ecc_autoinit: flag to denote the auto-initialization of TCMs for ECC
> * @single_cpu_mode: flag to denote if SoC/IP supports Single-CPU mode
> + * @is_single_core: flag to denote if SoC/IP has only single core R5
> */
> struct k3_r5_soc_data {
> bool tcm_is_double;
> bool tcm_ecc_autoinit;
> bool single_cpu_mode;
> + bool is_single_core;
If you are providing this data, then ignore parsing cluster-mode
property. This will make change very simple.
I believe this would save you any modification in bindings as well as
cluster-mode property is optional anyway.
Also, "enum cluster_mode" reflects cluster-mode values from bindings
document except proper soc compatible. I don't see new value added in
bindings document i.e. only
[0 -> split, 1 -> lockstep, 2 -> single cpu] are defined. If new enum is
introduced in driver, it is expected to reflect in bindings i.e. [3 ->
cluster-mode none] to avoid any confusion.
I believe it is duplicate logic if you are providing "is_single_core"
information here and introduce CLUSTER_MODE_NONE as well.
May be I am missing something, but I don't see any use of providing
extra value CLUSTER_MODE_NONE if "is_single_core" is set in the driver.
So, simple solutions is just to avoid parsing cluster-mode property if
is_single_core is set in the driver. Hope this helps.
Thanks,
Tanmay
> };
>
> /**
> @@ -838,7 +842,8 @@ static int k3_r5_rproc_configure(struct k3_r5_rproc *kproc)
>
> core0 = list_first_entry(&cluster->cores, struct k3_r5_core, elem);
> if (cluster->mode == CLUSTER_MODE_LOCKSTEP ||
> - cluster->mode == CLUSTER_MODE_SINGLECPU) {
> + cluster->mode == CLUSTER_MODE_SINGLECPU ||
> + cluster->mode == CLUSTER_MODE_NONE) {
> core = core0;
> } else {
> core = kproc->core;
> @@ -853,7 +858,7 @@ static int k3_r5_rproc_configure(struct k3_r5_rproc *kproc)
> boot_vec, cfg, ctrl, stat);
>
> /* check if only Single-CPU mode is supported on applicable SoCs */
> - if (cluster->soc_data->single_cpu_mode) {
> + if (cluster->soc_data->single_cpu_mode || cluster->soc_data->is_single_core) {
> single_cpu =
> !!(stat & PROC_BOOT_STATUS_FLAG_R5_SINGLECORE_ONLY);
> if (single_cpu && cluster->mode == CLUSTER_MODE_SPLIT) {
> @@ -1074,6 +1079,7 @@ static void k3_r5_adjust_tcm_sizes(struct k3_r5_rproc *kproc)
>
> if (cluster->mode == CLUSTER_MODE_LOCKSTEP ||
> cluster->mode == CLUSTER_MODE_SINGLECPU ||
> + cluster->mode == CLUSTER_MODE_NONE ||
> !cluster->soc_data->tcm_is_double)
> return;
>
> @@ -1147,7 +1153,9 @@ static int k3_r5_rproc_configure_mode(struct k3_r5_rproc *kproc)
> atcm_enable = cfg & PROC_BOOT_CFG_FLAG_R5_ATCM_EN ? 1 : 0;
> btcm_enable = cfg & PROC_BOOT_CFG_FLAG_R5_BTCM_EN ? 1 : 0;
> loczrama = cfg & PROC_BOOT_CFG_FLAG_R5_TCM_RSTBASE ? 1 : 0;
> - if (cluster->soc_data->single_cpu_mode) {
> + if (cluster->soc_data->is_single_core) {
> + mode = CLUSTER_MODE_NONE;
> + } else if (cluster->soc_data->single_cpu_mode) {
> mode = cfg & PROC_BOOT_CFG_FLAG_R5_SINGLE_CORE ?
> CLUSTER_MODE_SINGLECPU : CLUSTER_MODE_SPLIT;
> } else {
> @@ -1271,7 +1279,8 @@ static int k3_r5_cluster_rproc_init(struct platform_device *pdev)
>
> /* create only one rproc in lockstep mode or single-cpu mode */
> if (cluster->mode == CLUSTER_MODE_LOCKSTEP ||
> - cluster->mode == CLUSTER_MODE_SINGLECPU)
> + cluster->mode == CLUSTER_MODE_SINGLECPU ||
> + cluster->mode == CLUSTER_MODE_NONE)
> break;
> }
>
> @@ -1704,21 +1713,32 @@ static int k3_r5_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> * default to most common efuse configurations - Split-mode on AM64x
> * and LockStep-mode on all others
> */
> - cluster->mode = data->single_cpu_mode ?
> + if (!data->is_single_core)
> + cluster->mode = data->single_cpu_mode ?
> CLUSTER_MODE_SPLIT : CLUSTER_MODE_LOCKSTEP;
> + else
> + cluster->mode = CLUSTER_MODE_NONE;
> +
> cluster->soc_data = data;
> INIT_LIST_HEAD(&cluster->cores);
>
> - ret = of_property_read_u32(np, "ti,cluster-mode", &cluster->mode);
> - if (ret < 0 && ret != -EINVAL) {
> - dev_err(dev, "invalid format for ti,cluster-mode, ret = %d\n",
> - ret);
> - return ret;
> + if (!data->is_single_core) {
> + ret = of_property_read_u32(np, "ti,cluster-mode", &cluster->mode);
> + if (ret < 0 && ret != -EINVAL) {
> + dev_err(dev, "invalid format for ti,cluster-mode, ret = %d\n", ret);
> + return ret;
> + }
> }
>
> num_cores = of_get_available_child_count(np);
> - if (num_cores != 2) {
> - dev_err(dev, "MCU cluster requires both R5F cores to be enabled, num_cores = %d\n",
> + if (num_cores != 2 && !data->is_single_core) {
> + dev_err(dev, "MCU cluster requires both R5F cores to be enabled but num_cores is set to = %d\n",
> + num_cores);
> + return -ENODEV;
> + }
> +
> + if (num_cores != 1 && data->is_single_core) {
> + dev_err(dev, "SoC supports only single core R5 but num_cores is set to %d\n",
> num_cores);
> return -ENODEV;
> }
> @@ -1760,18 +1780,28 @@ static const struct k3_r5_soc_data am65_j721e_soc_data = {
> .tcm_is_double = false,
> .tcm_ecc_autoinit = false,
> .single_cpu_mode = false,
> + .is_single_core = false,
> };
>
> static const struct k3_r5_soc_data j7200_j721s2_soc_data = {
> .tcm_is_double = true,
> .tcm_ecc_autoinit = true,
> .single_cpu_mode = false,
> + .is_single_core = false,
> };
>
> static const struct k3_r5_soc_data am64_soc_data = {
> .tcm_is_double = true,
> .tcm_ecc_autoinit = true,
> .single_cpu_mode = true,
> + .is_single_core = false,
> +};
> +
> +static const struct k3_r5_soc_data am62_soc_data = {
> + .tcm_is_double = false,
> + .tcm_ecc_autoinit = true,
> + .single_cpu_mode = false,
> + .is_single_core = true,
> };
>
> static const struct of_device_id k3_r5_of_match[] = {
> @@ -1779,6 +1809,7 @@ static const struct of_device_id k3_r5_of_match[] = {
> { .compatible = "ti,j721e-r5fss", .data = &am65_j721e_soc_data, },
> { .compatible = "ti,j7200-r5fss", .data = &j7200_j721s2_soc_data, },
> { .compatible = "ti,am64-r5fss", .data = &am64_soc_data, },
> + { .compatible = "ti,am62-r5fss", .data = &am62_soc_data, },
> { .compatible = "ti,j721s2-r5fss", .data = &j7200_j721s2_soc_data, },
> { /* sentinel */ },
> };
> --
> 2.17.1
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists