| 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: <2ec29f46-9e0d-7387-6744-a165917fcad4@ti.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2022 16:30:57 +0530
From: Devarsh Thakkar <devarsht@...com>
To: Tanmay Shah <tanmays@....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 Tanmay,
Thanks for the review and sorry for the delay. Please find my response
inline.
On 30/11/22 23:27, Tanmay Shah wrote:
> Hi Devarsh,
>
> Please find my comments below.
>
> On 11/30/22 6:40 PM, Devarsh Thakkar wrote:
>>
>>
>> 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.
Yes, I think we are doing the same thing here. AM62x is modeled as a
cluster with a single core child but since it is single core there is no
cluster mode applicable as such and hence no cluster-mode required to be
set in device-tree for AM62x.
> 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.
To support backward compatibility we introduced CLUSTER_MODE_NONE at 3,
but I think we can use -1 index and maybe another name say
CLUSTER_MODE_INVALID to make it less confusing. The cluster-mode
property doesn't apply to AM62x since it uses CLUSTER_MODE_INVALID, my
understanding is we don't need to describe CLUSTER_MODE_INVALID in
dt-binding since it will be only used internally by driver as -1 and need
not be set at all in device-tree since for AM62x there won't be any
cluster-mode property required to be set in the devicetree.
>
> 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.
Fair point, we could have used soc data's is_single_core check instead
of adding a new enum and used that check and that would have worked too.
But in that case, cluster-mode by default would be set to 0 with as
part of allocation of k3_r5_cluster struct during probe which would
imply incorrectly CLUSTER_MODE_SPLIT for AM62x. I think it is better
to have another enum say CLUSTER_MODE_INVALID and use it for SoC's like
AM62x to make it less confusing.
Regards,
Devarsh
>
>
> 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