From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from fllv0016.ext.ti.com (fllv0016.ext.ti.com [198.47.19.142]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6EB681EB2E; Fri, 4 Oct 2024 11:52:10 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=198.47.19.142 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1728042732; cv=none; b=XdLxMweRcpGAR107E/yDrObeRPczs5gxPS5gIGqILvdfTTNdIoJuNOnck2GLrMag7F0woNEdGCiI3xrXVgLyBhsYN0cbhqIIq8yE/UPTD5SmilGpuyzDmsz1T6I3YAbHOY1dokHrgJPPPo2FuzuzoeLtaCh7W1IhWphkdlv06bQ= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1728042732; c=relaxed/simple; bh=hWoHkJL6/ppkfmK4zACz+qW8rTWSguxcAGrIsZm6vvA=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:CC:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=ZOoUshSLhmKIykta9r3nk01jcyZbNemVTihyXRYCUZ16V7ucm42mKbdrxHdKPdjQBO4+kWaLGT6FmwZIXxtoAxoRAVoBDGlEB18pk1D799kctJTiZnJ5yTq4UTqotTyhWHH96rWzScmN22G5iwT1DhG1Y0bvYxIOgh3T5Yfqsd0= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=ti.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=ti.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=ti.com header.i=@ti.com header.b=kKzyTUxo; arc=none smtp.client-ip=198.47.19.142 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=ti.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=ti.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=ti.com header.i=@ti.com header.b="kKzyTUxo" Received: from lelv0266.itg.ti.com ([10.180.67.225]) by fllv0016.ext.ti.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 494Bq1aX007707; Fri, 4 Oct 2024 06:52:01 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ti.com; s=ti-com-17Q1; t=1728042721; bh=/G0/9klOANiuSTmUlDyon4pqC1c2O+4Sjsu2IjzZKGs=; h=Date:Subject:To:CC:References:From:In-Reply-To; b=kKzyTUxo1ifyI9fHryy2mVBwAAl+N45eTMR8jBeJ7U2ZwmhMlJTCO+B5FNLftUEwv +f+wg3jUKCAFAql1hRi7A5IbSeQjrY5NROLF6/tbcmqdS41W3doI5vmT6d1I6nF9zk ycn+MPULGv0jroZ2yo9o8JE40XHo59osxwvat4RI= Received: from DLEE112.ent.ti.com (dlee112.ent.ti.com [157.170.170.23]) by lelv0266.itg.ti.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 494Bq1OF073816; Fri, 4 Oct 2024 06:52:01 -0500 Received: from DLEE106.ent.ti.com (157.170.170.36) by DLEE112.ent.ti.com (157.170.170.23) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.2507.23; Fri, 4 Oct 2024 06:52:01 -0500 Received: from lelvsmtp6.itg.ti.com (10.180.75.249) by DLEE106.ent.ti.com (157.170.170.36) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.2507.23 via Frontend Transport; Fri, 4 Oct 2024 06:52:01 -0500 Received: from [128.247.81.173] (ula0226330.dhcp.ti.com [128.247.81.173] (may be forged)) by lelvsmtp6.itg.ti.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 494Bq1o8091091; Fri, 4 Oct 2024 06:52:01 -0500 Message-ID: <716e0d28-1735-45ac-9339-cde1cf14a8a1@ti.com> Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2024 06:52:01 -0500 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH v12 2/5] arm64: dts: ti: k3-am625-sk: Add M4F remoteproc node To: Nishanth Menon , Bryan Brattlof CC: Vignesh Raghavendra , Tero Kristo , Rob Herring , Krzysztof Kozlowski , Conor Dooley , , , References: <20241003170118.24932-1-afd@ti.com> <20241003170118.24932-3-afd@ti.com> <20241003210606.2k7wyssklwfziod4@bryanbrattlof.com> <20241004112637.nc2qcquiuwdhdrye@thirteen> Content-Language: en-US From: Andrew Davis In-Reply-To: <20241004112637.nc2qcquiuwdhdrye@thirteen> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-C2ProcessedOrg: 333ef613-75bf-4e12-a4b1-8e3623f5dcea On 10/4/24 6:26 AM, Nishanth Menon wrote: > On 16:06-20241003, Bryan Brattlof wrote: >> Hi Andrew! >> >> On October 3, 2024 thus sayeth Andrew Davis: >>> From: Hari Nagalla >>> >>> The AM62x SoCs of the TI K3 family have a Cortex M4F core in the MCU >>> domain. This core can be used by non safety applications as a remote >>> processor. When used as a remote processor with virtio/rpmessage IPC, >>> two carveout reserved memory nodes are needed. The first region is used >>> as a DMA pool for the rproc device, and the second region will furnish >>> the static carveout regions for the firmware memory. >>> >>> The current carveout addresses and sizes are defined statically for >>> each rproc device. The M4F processor does not have an MMU, and as such >>> requires the exact memory used by the firmware to be set-aside. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Hari Nagalla >>> Signed-off-by: Andrew Davis >>> --- >>> .../arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-am62x-sk-common.dtsi | 19 +++++++++++++++++++ >>> 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+) >>> >>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-am62x-sk-common.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-am62x-sk-common.dtsi >>> index 44ff67b6bf1e4..6957b3e44c82f 100644 >>> --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-am62x-sk-common.dtsi >>> +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-am62x-sk-common.dtsi >>> @@ -56,6 +56,18 @@ linux,cma { >>> linux,cma-default; >>> }; >>> >>> + mcu_m4fss_dma_memory_region: m4f-dma-memory@9cb00000 { >>> + compatible = "shared-dma-pool"; >>> + reg = <0x00 0x9cb00000 0x00 0x100000>; >>> + no-map; >>> + }; >>> + >>> + mcu_m4fss_memory_region: m4f-memory@9cc00000 { >>> + compatible = "shared-dma-pool"; >>> + reg = <0x00 0x9cc00000 0x00 0xe00000>; >>> + no-map; >>> + }; >>> + >> >> The only issue I have here is this takes away memory from people who do >> not use these firmware or causes them to work around this patch if they >> choose to have different carveouts. > > They can define their own overlays. > >> >> Would an overlay be appropriate for this? > > Why is this any different from existing boards? Are you suggesting a > change for all existing boards as well? > Yes, I believe that is what is being suggested, and I agree with it. It would also help with all these non-SK boards we now have, they would simply apply the same overlay when using the firmware that requires these carveouts. I've been thinking on doing that for a while, but I wanted to keep the same pattern just for this one last series. Then we can attempt to refactor next. Andrew