| 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: <f08e550b-2f15-0f84-c0ca-05e0b803481a@kernel.org>
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2023 10:52:55 +0300
From: Roger Quadros <rogerq@...nel.org>
To: Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@...aro.org>,
Devarsh Thakkar <devarsht@...com>
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 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?
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