From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C73ACC4332F for ; Wed, 14 Dec 2022 11:01:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S238239AbiLNLBt (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Dec 2022 06:01:49 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:59998 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S238156AbiLNLB0 (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Dec 2022 06:01:26 -0500 Received: from fllv0016.ext.ti.com (fllv0016.ext.ti.com [198.47.19.142]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 51E041E3E0; Wed, 14 Dec 2022 03:01:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from lelv0266.itg.ti.com ([10.180.67.225]) by fllv0016.ext.ti.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 2BEB1441011153; Wed, 14 Dec 2022 05:01:04 -0600 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ti.com; s=ti-com-17Q1; t=1671015664; bh=oWDrn225LgGaetMJ4YUTBvm8za4MYf4qSv1L0flJXeM=; h=Date:Subject:To:CC:References:From:In-Reply-To; b=gPHUjD6aAm0m9z9DKacPPWYCHWMjWAzsxEo5cRkyPAtjpviShodath2e1KxVYPqyl eg8XN70S9H6WkjlQ4CbDVYcrFkFKNud7XZI1oOJC/WxQ9T7GGoi2lY8hcUkG6dmkA1 5SjsjD9QhjhYEyZol2/UJKEitFpVI9XR70sNuFjI= Received: from DLEE115.ent.ti.com (dlee115.ent.ti.com [157.170.170.26]) by lelv0266.itg.ti.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 2BEB14ar103240 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 14 Dec 2022 05:01:04 -0600 Received: from DLEE100.ent.ti.com (157.170.170.30) by DLEE115.ent.ti.com (157.170.170.26) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.2507.16; Wed, 14 Dec 2022 05:01:03 -0600 Received: from lelv0326.itg.ti.com (10.180.67.84) by DLEE100.ent.ti.com (157.170.170.30) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.2507.16 via Frontend Transport; Wed, 14 Dec 2022 05:01:03 -0600 Received: from [172.24.145.199] (ileaxei01-snat.itg.ti.com [10.180.69.5]) by lelv0326.itg.ti.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 2BEB0wAh030294; Wed, 14 Dec 2022 05:00:59 -0600 Message-ID: <2ec29f46-9e0d-7387-6744-a165917fcad4@ti.com> Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2022 16:30:57 +0530 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.4.2 Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] remoteproc: k3-r5: Use separate compatible string for TI AM62 SoC family To: Tanmay Shah , , , , , , , CC: , , , , , , , References: <20221130134052.7513-1-devarsht@ti.com> <20221130134052.7513-3-devarsht@ti.com> Content-Language: en-US From: Devarsh Thakkar In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-EXCLAIMER-MD-CONFIG: e1e8a2fd-e40a-4ac6-ac9b-f7e9cc9ee180 Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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 >> --- >> 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 >>