| 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: <5382c15d-84dc-2255-8fc5-9192917fd4a5@ti.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2023 18:45:59 +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 29/03/23 13:51, Roger Quadros wrote:
>
>
> On 28/03/2023 19:08, Devarsh Thakkar wrote:
>> 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
>
> I still didn't get what is the difference between the two from SW point of view.
> What happens if you just use CLUSTER_MODE_SINGLECPU for AM62 SoC?
Talking about mere functionality, I think there are some checks in
driver which expect two cores for this (since CLUSTER_MODE_SINGLECPU is
to select one out of two cores as mentioned earlier) but if those checks
are handled it would be possible to use am64 compatible and achieve the
functionality in am62 and I do remember running it with some hacks to
bypass those checks during pre-silicon.
But this doesn't seem to be proper way since bindings say
CLUSTER_MODE_SINGLECPU is for dual core scenarios as mentioned in
DT-binding [1] :
"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."
and to use it for single core scenarios would conflict above definition.
I had also discussed this in past offline with Suman who is the author
of this driver and we aligned on not using CLUSTER_MODE_SINGLECPU for
am62 due to above reasons.
[1]:
https://gitlab.com/linux-kernel/linux-next/-/blob/next-20230328/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/remoteproc/ti%2Ck3-r5f-rproc.yaml#L20
Regards
Devarsh
>
>> 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