From: Devarsh Thakkar <devarsht@ti.com>
To: Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@linaro.org>
Cc: <andersson@kernel.org>, <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>,
<p.zabel@pengutronix.de>, <linux-remoteproc@vger.kernel.org>,
<robh+dt@kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
<krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org>, <s-anna@ti.com>,
<hnagalla@ti.com>, <praneeth@ti.com>, <nm@ti.com>,
<vigneshr@ti.com>, <a-bhatia1@ti.com>, <j-luthra@ti.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 3/3] remoteproc: k3-r5: Use separate compatible string for TI AM62x SoC family
Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2023 20:11:49 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <53a231ae-1bc7-d8ab-9117-d8c73b2db5c1@ti.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20230116164527.GB3239767@p14s>
Hi Mathieu,
On 16/01/23 22:15, Mathieu Poirier wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 16, 2023 at 08:49:06PM +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@ti.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.
>> ---
>> drivers/remoteproc/ti_k3_r5_remoteproc.c | 62 +++++++++++++++++++-----
>> 1 file changed, 49 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/ti_k3_r5_remoteproc.c b/drivers/remoteproc/ti_k3_r5_remoteproc.c
>> index 036c9dc217f3..089215144e6b 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
>> };
>>
>> /**
>> @@ -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;
>> @@ -881,7 +886,8 @@ 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;
>
> Why was this not part of the 5 previous version?
I came to know about this recently only. The AM62x R5 IPC is functional
even without this change but set_config was failing in another single core MCU
R5 chip which was using this compatible. The recommendation I got from firmware
team was to set this flag for all single core R5 scenarios.
Regards,
Devarsh
>
>> } else {
>> /*
>> @@ -1073,6 +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_SINGLECORE ||
>> !cluster->soc_data->tcm_is_double)
>> return;
>>
>> @@ -1146,7 +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_SINGLECORE;
>> + } else if (cluster->soc_data->single_cpu_mode) {
>
> I have already commented on that.
>
>> mode = cfg & PROC_BOOT_CFG_FLAG_R5_SINGLE_CORE ?
>> CLUSTER_MODE_SINGLECPU : CLUSTER_MODE_SPLIT;
>> } else {
>> @@ -1268,9 +1277,12 @@ 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;
>> }
>>
>> @@ -1699,12 +1711,19 @@ static int k3_r5_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>> return -ENOMEM;
>>
>> cluster->dev = dev;
>> +
>> /*
>> - * 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;
>> +
>> cluster->soc_data = data;
>> INIT_LIST_HEAD(&cluster->cores);
>>
>> @@ -1716,8 +1735,14 @@ static int k3_r5_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>> }
>>
>> 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;
>> }
>> @@ -1759,18 +1784,28 @@ 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[] = {
>> @@ -1778,6 +1813,7 @@ 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
>>
prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-01-17 14:42 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-01-16 15:19 [PATCH v6 0/3] Add single core R5F IPC for AM62 " Devarsh Thakkar
2023-01-16 15:19 ` [PATCH v6 1/3] remoteproc: k3-r5: Simplify single core config set Devarsh Thakkar
2023-01-16 16:43 ` Mathieu Poirier
2023-01-16 15:19 ` [PATCH v6 2/3] dt-bindings: remoteproc: ti: Add new compatible for AM62 SoC family Devarsh Thakkar
2023-01-16 19:06 ` Krzysztof Kozlowski
2023-01-17 5:24 ` Devarsh Thakkar
2023-01-17 14:49 ` Raghavendra, Vignesh
2023-01-16 15:19 ` [PATCH v6 3/3] remoteproc: k3-r5: Use separate compatible string for TI AM62x " Devarsh Thakkar
2023-01-16 16:45 ` Mathieu Poirier
2023-01-17 14:41 ` Devarsh Thakkar [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=53a231ae-1bc7-d8ab-9117-d8c73b2db5c1@ti.com \
--to=devarsht@ti.com \
--cc=a-bhatia1@ti.com \
--cc=andersson@kernel.org \
--cc=devicetree@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=hnagalla@ti.com \
--cc=j-luthra@ti.com \
--cc=krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-remoteproc@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mathieu.poirier@linaro.org \
--cc=nm@ti.com \
--cc=p.zabel@pengutronix.de \
--cc=praneeth@ti.com \
--cc=robh+dt@kernel.org \
--cc=s-anna@ti.com \
--cc=vigneshr@ti.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®