| 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: <1a24f99a-99c1-bf00-e5e7-1085cfd8faf5@ti.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2023 21:38:30 +0530
From: Devarsh Thakkar <devarsht@...com>
To: Roger Quadros <rogerq@...nel.org>,
Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@...aro.org>
CC: <andersson@...nel.org>, <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
<p.zabel@...gutronix.de>, <linux-remoteproc@...r.kernel.org>,
<robh+dt@...nel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
<krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>, <s-anna@...com>,
<hnagalla@...com>, <praneeth@...com>, <nm@...com>,
<vigneshr@...com>, <a-bhatia1@...com>, <j-luthra@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 3/3] remoteproc: k3-r5: Use separate compatible string
for TI AM62x SoC family
Hi Roger,
On 28/03/23 13:22, Roger Quadros wrote:
> Hi Devarsh,
>
> On 17/03/2023 18:17, Mathieu Poirier wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 10, 2023 at 09:55:44PM +0530, 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_SINGLECORE and use it when compatible is set to
>>> ti,am62-r5fss.
>>>
>>> Also set PROC_BOOT_CFG_FLAG_R5_SINGLE_CORE config for
>>> CLUSTER_MODE_SINGLECORE too as it is required by R5 core when it is
>>> being as general purpose core instead of device manager.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Devarsh Thakkar <devarsht@...com>
>>> ---
>>> V2:
>>> - Fix indentation and ordering issues as per review comments
>>> V3:
>>> - Change CLUSTER_MODE_NONE value to -1
>>> V4:
>>> - No change
>>> V5:
>>> - No change (fixing typo in email address)
>>> V6:
>>> - Use CLUSTER_MODE_SINGLECORE for AM62x
>>> - Set PROC_BOOT_CFG_FLAG_R5_SINGLE_CORE for single core.
>>> V7:
>>> - Simplify and rebase on top of base commit "[PATCH v7] remoteproc: k3-r5: Simplify cluster
>>> mode setting"
>>> ---
>>> drivers/remoteproc/ti_k3_r5_remoteproc.c | 59 +++++++++++++++++++-----
>>> 1 file changed, 48 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/ti_k3_r5_remoteproc.c b/drivers/remoteproc/ti_k3_r5_remoteproc.c
>>> index c2ec0f432921..df32f6bc4325 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/remoteproc/ti_k3_r5_remoteproc.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/ti_k3_r5_remoteproc.c
>>> @@ -71,14 +71,16 @@ struct k3_r5_mem {
>>> /*
>>> * All cluster mode values are not applicable on all SoCs. The following
>>> * are the modes supported on various SoCs:
>>> - * Split mode : AM65x, J721E, J7200 and AM64x SoCs
>>> - * LockStep mode : AM65x, J721E and J7200 SoCs
>>> - * Single-CPU mode : AM64x SoCs only
>>> + * Split mode : AM65x, J721E, J7200 and AM64x SoCs
>>> + * LockStep mode : AM65x, J721E and J7200 SoCs
>>> + * Single-CPU mode : AM64x SoCs only
>>> + * Single-Core mode : AM62x, AM62A SoCs
>>> */
>>> enum cluster_mode {
>>> CLUSTER_MODE_SPLIT = 0,
>>> CLUSTER_MODE_LOCKSTEP,
>>> CLUSTER_MODE_SINGLECPU,
>>> + CLUSTER_MODE_SINGLECORE
>
> What is the difference in device driver behaviour between
> SINGLECPU and SINGLECORE?
>
Yeah there is quite a bit of common code flow between the two but the
fundamental difference is that you use CLUSTER_MODE_SINGLECPU when
you have two R5F cores but you want to use only single R5F core albeit
with using TCM of both the cores whereas CLUSTER_MODE_SINGLECORE is
for the scenario where you have single core R5F's only.
Also the bindings for CLUSTER_MODE_SINGLECPU are already upstream so did
not want to break them either :
https://gitlab.com/linux-kernel/linux-next/-/blob/next-20230328/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/remoteproc/ti%2Ck3-r5f-rproc.yaml#L20.
Regards
Devarsh
> If there is no difference then you should not introduce
> a new enum. >
>>> };
>>>
>>> /**
>>> @@ -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;
>>> };
>>>
>>> /**
>>> @@ -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_SINGLECORE) {
>>> core = core0;
>>> } else {
>>> core = kproc->core;
>>> @@ -877,7 +882,8 @@ static int k3_r5_rproc_configure(struct k3_r5_rproc *kproc)
>>> * with the bit configured, so program it only on
>>> * permitted cores
>>> */
>>> - if (cluster->mode == CLUSTER_MODE_SINGLECPU) {
>>> + if (cluster->mode == CLUSTER_MODE_SINGLECPU ||
>>> + cluster->mode == CLUSTER_MODE_SINGLECORE) {
>>> set_cfg = PROC_BOOT_CFG_FLAG_R5_SINGLE_CORE;
>>> } else {
>>> /*
>>> @@ -1069,6 +1075,7 @@ 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_SINGLECORE ||
>>> !cluster->soc_data->tcm_is_double)
>>> return;
>>>
>>> @@ -1145,6 +1152,8 @@ static int k3_r5_rproc_configure_mode(struct k3_r5_rproc *kproc)
>>> if (cluster->soc_data->single_cpu_mode) {
>>> mode = cfg & PROC_BOOT_CFG_FLAG_R5_SINGLE_CORE ?
>>> CLUSTER_MODE_SINGLECPU : CLUSTER_MODE_SPLIT;
>>> + } else if (cluster->soc_data->is_single_core) {
>>> + mode = CLUSTER_MODE_SINGLECORE;
>>
>> I have commented twice on this before - whether it is soc_data->single_cpu_mode or
>> soc_data->is_single_core, I don't want to see them used elsewhere than in a
>> single function. Either in probe() or another function, use them once to set
>> cluster->mode and never again.
>>
>> I will silently drop any other patchset that doesn't address this.
>>
>>> } else {
>>> mode = cfg & PROC_BOOT_CFG_FLAG_R5_LOCKSTEP ?
>>> CLUSTER_MODE_LOCKSTEP : CLUSTER_MODE_SPLIT;
>>> @@ -1264,9 +1273,12 @@ static int k3_r5_cluster_rproc_init(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>> goto err_add;
>>> }
>>>
>>> - /* create only one rproc in lockstep mode or single-cpu mode */
>>> + /* create only one rproc in lockstep, single-cpu or
>>> + * single core mode
>>> + */
>>> if (cluster->mode == CLUSTER_MODE_LOCKSTEP ||
>>> - cluster->mode == CLUSTER_MODE_SINGLECPU)
>>> + cluster->mode == CLUSTER_MODE_SINGLECPU ||
>>> + cluster->mode == CLUSTER_MODE_SINGLECORE)
>>> break;
>>> }
>>>
>>> @@ -1709,19 +1721,33 @@ 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
>>> + * default to most common efuse configurations -
>>> + * Split-mode on AM64x
>>> + * Single core on AM62x
>>> + * 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_SINGLECORE;
>>> }
>>>
>>> - if (cluster->mode == CLUSTER_MODE_SINGLECPU && !data->single_cpu_mode) {
>>> + if ((cluster->mode == CLUSTER_MODE_SINGLECPU && !data->single_cpu_mode) ||
>>> + (cluster->mode == CLUSTER_MODE_SINGLECORE && !data->is_single_core)) {
>>> dev_err(dev, "Cluster mode = %d is not supported on this SoC\n", cluster->mode);
>>> return -EINVAL;
>>> }
>>>
>>> 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;
>>> }
>>> @@ -1763,18 +1789,28 @@ 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[] = {
>>> @@ -1782,6 +1818,7 @@ 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 */ },
>>> };
>>> --
>>> 2.34.1
>>>
>
> cheers,
> -roger
Powered by blists - more mailing lists