Received: by 2002:a05:6a10:a0d1:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id j17csp1320145pxa; Thu, 20 Aug 2020 08:17:56 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxtqShSYDS0WT7o4RxLJjWyFKLIJ6NKvrbQIpLktkAoePKKk+QgW1uUWMAeuBhaz5aAQ+ij X-Received: by 2002:aa7:cd6c:: with SMTP id ca12mr3202710edb.365.1597936676262; Thu, 20 Aug 2020 08:17:56 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=2; a=rsa-sha256; t=1597936676; cv=pass; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=LW44VQsJvn+UKa+Hee6l8072ggxNC6rd1w79BV7RX0HjN3bxMqEo+uZ1TsDJ9T7Ish UIi3Q5frgPb3FsATBwBayVh0kb1K17EoHKYIvKqEnNnyk3ExwXE3RhCF0szvzNC8jUWc QJbIwRwDP1XesaunOfZjIxO6yePKVBxUdmNgOnR75xIFpHSjKzWLLEs8r53r8+jPerUE dR7b8SZqmCN8H4zylLUz3o1RkHzqCpUH+wxOe9mKfBSiZqlBtgihOWeo1+ttPgIngbmQ pTtEHAZ+OwPnLibilTkepS4eruM0wwb9a4XbxU6CoTq1IklRt9LPwWslMczZweqNgyt9 tEjw== ARC-Message-Signature: i=2; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:sender:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding :content-language:accept-language:in-reply-to:references:message-id :date:thread-index:thread-topic:subject:cc:to:from:dkim-signature; bh=b6duGQ41xnN7LQPFMbKT6Xb32iZ99IkIPHYiy13mQLY=; b=SAsjh0LC+UtBBV6xw/JTmJmp1hDepnyIY9K1b/192Ydlx35PV7MifTnpKVlMdAu4Qz kMIvkf8pLblnSk/bIRJ7HBqAuNJNf7gMWm6xiFFO1fPtuPGGJt6iDN7AjbQUmNFpnyHc CZ1r0If7BpomgZ6uNqW4p0aRiHjjVKb/iv97reUpNmQqkzEfBIBfNM3PN8cezOaDmJxj ET+qapvwudrYQ83PWvxVkSArBiEdwUrph6PFeH/Dey667PKC/+Yj+N5uvr7GQveflEUZ EZNaiBN4RtpgwrmRUw1kRfo8ZsDvG6gMBHDD0zIFhzIZJeRavGgWXAGx+xtL3Q/CJOiw mlgw== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=2; mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@xilinx.onmicrosoft.com header.s=selector2-xilinx-onmicrosoft-com header.b=sXgJCAAx; arc=pass (i=1 spf=pass spfdomain=xilinx.com dkim=pass dkdomain=xilinx.com dmarc=pass fromdomain=xilinx.com); spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [23.128.96.18]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id c5si1621728edq.89.2020.08.20.08.17.31; Thu, 20 Aug 2020 08:17:56 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@xilinx.onmicrosoft.com header.s=selector2-xilinx-onmicrosoft-com header.b=sXgJCAAx; arc=pass (i=1 spf=pass spfdomain=xilinx.com dkim=pass dkdomain=xilinx.com dmarc=pass fromdomain=xilinx.com); spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728626AbgHTPN3 (ORCPT + 99 others); Thu, 20 Aug 2020 11:13:29 -0400 Received: from mail-eopbgr750055.outbound.protection.outlook.com ([40.107.75.55]:19425 "EHLO NAM02-BL2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727920AbgHTPNX (ORCPT ); Thu, 20 Aug 2020 11:13:23 -0400 ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=b13Z+JZorhL3XHfyaGVY9+eVmLAbcRzK8wDFx0wKdAlgzeiRKfupa230WUB6kN+oYLd/MihhBkcNubD1dItjSB1d/hN0xkoGqepVoGkee/YbEyLlUMhvffRrH/zmZE1g1nYUSr6OuRvadcgqwrQVHAy4e7b7aWrpgqGbpylXAFvW6bRRkYNAXgbxQsacnpUwb4+pNcaORYp1MY60tkCV2ISqDKyIJAkwjnkSDoNMJtN0+aRhC8Jt3cizKgO6XvUYhWqb3GftQm4oJIy0lRBo2QIE7LHzHn5m3fZGPJOJiI9XLW/30eg2f30VrmpEix79vUeZU89/U0FKQGig9vazrA== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=b6duGQ41xnN7LQPFMbKT6Xb32iZ99IkIPHYiy13mQLY=; b=aU1eFnC0iBW7a06QTk2aEGinbaZTSfkczFfz/2NcAdSLAFRDPN1C+MB8zuvi2QCHIIQc3O5gwODEgefcMdrorPm7zWsqYZJsZTsvFeBazfELmraSkHoyvuJPLRVQLiRMS4NG7Eu8PqAUIJwlSw3egoiblo0WzHAktRvS1d61HnudNmDnALmMD1s65GuWQAXWD7wOLV8nxItpNIL0bVCnoV/bSJD1DYRxzzUj/Xe1zhEt2d49M9jT2zT7mLOgm1r26yeYyL+kEuAahtaUFFh0QHMutfYXzeymGINoK9hrWnriGTBbR/Ugz/TYYHlGRBaEMYtVzcnPTKcxXl6xY1ee7w== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=xilinx.com; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=xilinx.com; dkim=pass header.d=xilinx.com; arc=none DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=xilinx.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector2-xilinx-onmicrosoft-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=b6duGQ41xnN7LQPFMbKT6Xb32iZ99IkIPHYiy13mQLY=; b=sXgJCAAxcy3aAWGLzW7UbjXr+2zgfNipyDhLDAxKKG9iKjy7rk3FuJfwtTUL7tJoLZ54rjQ79Hw5TOLWrApLnhR2VHWtWGKHQn8jz/Xco96Wzh4vP8bVoc+qiUCeGuNdAS6qohZb6SHmPg+tv1YD9yYdR386se46g8kNs7VLnzI= Received: from BYAPR02MB4407.namprd02.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:a03:55::31) by BY5PR02MB6550.namprd02.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:a03:1d5::17) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.3305.24; Thu, 20 Aug 2020 15:13:18 +0000 Received: from BYAPR02MB4407.namprd02.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::b0f6:b3a:6543:26f5]) by BYAPR02MB4407.namprd02.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::b0f6:b3a:6543:26f5%5]) with mapi id 15.20.3305.024; Thu, 20 Aug 2020 15:13:18 +0000 From: Ben Levinsky To: Stefano Stabellini CC: Michal Simek , "devicetree@vger.kernel.org" , "mathieu.poirier@linaro.org" , "Ed T. Mooring" , "linux-remoteproc@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "robh+dt@kernel.org" , Jiaying Liang , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" Subject: RE: [PATCH v8 5/5] remoteproc: Add initial zynqmp R5 remoteproc driver Thread-Topic: [PATCH v8 5/5] remoteproc: Add initial zynqmp R5 remoteproc driver Thread-Index: AQHWb5ATV4ChTkO3Pki1oN57qb9mj6k2g4WAgAd0r9CAAgX1AIABKS1g Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2020 15:13:17 +0000 Message-ID: References: <20200811033213.20088-1-ben.levinsky@xilinx.com> <20200811033213.20088-6-ben.levinsky@xilinx.com> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-Auto-Response-Suppress: DR, RN, NRN, OOF, AutoReply X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: authentication-results: xilinx.com; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;xilinx.com; dmarc=none action=none header.from=xilinx.com; x-originating-ip: [99.174.248.71] x-ms-publictraffictype: Email x-ms-office365-filtering-ht: Tenant x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 92f30c51-7d1e-46c2-d7a4-08d8451b9186 x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: BY5PR02MB6550: x-ms-exchange-transport-forked: True x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:1284; x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1 x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0; x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: a/vG3XI6SurqVgUPs9fgoYRQNRjBXkSFnD82arOUZh3iRgGlh2aiOBzgIsNdZqERR5+9iuKBlNPGlaGICejI15j19INvQXoEwT5o3NHD8C172CaJt4E31LQv32lKdTZHpE3ReiGZ/L+dU1IvSCPP2oj1GoYFYThpoA++NNjhONGRpPPnkg32GuVpmNqQX+CqsFmbkotDoDzOvzJM0Z6bHDfQREeryVqhGSj6K6kAbyHTeVYNFhsBahfW5jZM+tRbhQU161osPFDpnsJUxGFC8O3L6tDxiRV2uM3jvIJ+7mmq0lRK+kfISdQ5gJjEoolo+NbKeLepuLDwrmYlXqO4UQ== x-forefront-antispam-report: CIP:255.255.255.255;CTRY:;LANG:en;SCL:1;SRV:;IPV:NLI;SFV:NSPM;H:BYAPR02MB4407.namprd02.prod.outlook.com;PTR:;CAT:NONE;SFS:(376002)(346002)(39860400002)(366004)(136003)(396003)(64756008)(66476007)(26005)(478600001)(316002)(55016002)(66446008)(83380400001)(6862004)(186003)(66556008)(5660300002)(33656002)(2906002)(8676002)(52536014)(9686003)(6636002)(76116006)(7696005)(86362001)(66946007)(4326008)(54906003)(6506007)(53546011)(71200400001)(8936002)(30864003);DIR:OUT;SFP:1101; x-ms-exchange-antispam-messagedata: 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 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginatorOrg: xilinx.com X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthAs: Internal X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthSource: BYAPR02MB4407.namprd02.prod.outlook.com X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 92f30c51-7d1e-46c2-d7a4-08d8451b9186 X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 20 Aug 2020 15:13:17.8613 (UTC) X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 657af505-d5df-48d0-8300-c31994686c5c X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: nY1fHon8oPKAdJ0efDG6pzuCDIqQSassRpNGhKTxpSSODP4pdwiWILBtdF/2+WsiE7QRtF2tjp3YJrWAhufmkQ== X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BY5PR02MB6550 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > -----Original Message----- > From: Stefano Stabellini > Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2020 2:21 PM > To: Ben Levinsky > Cc: Stefano Stabellini ; Michal Simek > ; devicetree@vger.kernel.org; > mathieu.poirier@linaro.org; Ed T. Mooring ; linux- > remoteproc@vger.kernel.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; > robh+dt@kernel.org; Jiaying Liang ; linux-arm- > kernel@lists.infradead.org > Subject: RE: [PATCH v8 5/5] remoteproc: Add initial zynqmp R5 remoteproc > driver >=20 > On Tue, 18 Aug 2020, Ben Levinsky wrote: > > > > +/** > > > > + * struct zynqmp_r5_mem - zynqmp rpu memory data > > > > + * @pnode_id: TCM power domain ids > > > > + * @res: memory resource > > > > + * @node: list node > > > > + */ > > > > +struct zynqmp_r5_mem { > > > > + u32 pnode_id[MAX_MEM_PNODES]; > > > > + struct resource res; > > > > + struct list_head node; > > > > +}; > > > > + > > > > +/** > > > > + * struct zynqmp_r5_pdata - zynqmp rpu remote processor private da= ta > > > > + * @dev: device of RPU instance > > > > + * @rproc: rproc handle > > > > + * @pnode_id: RPU CPU power domain id > > > > + * @mems: memory resources > > > > + * @is_r5_mode_set: indicate if r5 operation mode is set > > > > + * @tx_mc: tx mailbox client > > > > + * @rx_mc: rx mailbox client > > > > + * @tx_chan: tx mailbox channel > > > > + * @rx_chan: rx mailbox channel > > > > + * @mbox_work: mbox_work for the RPU remoteproc > > > > + * @tx_mc_skbs: socket buffers for tx mailbox client > > > > + * @rx_mc_buf: rx mailbox client buffer to save the rx message > > > > + */ > > > > +struct zynqmp_r5_pdata { > > > > + struct device dev; > > > > + struct rproc *rproc; > > > > + u32 pnode_id; > > > > + struct list_head mems; > > > > + bool is_r5_mode_set; > > > > + struct mbox_client tx_mc; > > > > + struct mbox_client rx_mc; > > > > + struct mbox_chan *tx_chan; > > > > + struct mbox_chan *rx_chan; > > > > + struct work_struct mbox_work; > > > > + struct sk_buff_head tx_mc_skbs; > > > > + unsigned char rx_mc_buf[RX_MBOX_CLIENT_BUF_MAX]; > > > > > > A simple small reordering of the struct fields would lead to small > > > memory savings due to alignment. > > > > > > > > [Ben Levinsky] will do. Do you mean ordering in either ascending or > descending order? >=20 > Each field has a different alignment in the struct, so for example after > pnode_id there are probably 4 unused bytes because mems is 64bit > aligned. >=20 >=20 [Ben Levinsky] ok will update this so the alignments are done with less unu= sed memory per struct allocation. > > > > +/* > > > > + * TCM needs mapping to R5 relative address and xilinx platform mg= mt > call > > > > + */ > > > > +struct rproc_mem_entry *handle_tcm_parsing(struct device *dev, > > > > + struct reserved_mem *rmem, > > > > + struct device_node *node, > > > > + int lookup_idx) > > > > +{ > > > > + void *va; > > > > + dma_addr_t dma; > > > > + resource_size_t size; > > > > + int ret; > > > > + u32 pnode_id; > > > > + struct resource rsc; > > > > + struct rproc_mem_entry *mem; > > > > + > > > > + pnode_id =3D tcm_addr_to_pnode[lookup_idx][1]; > > > > + ret =3D zynqmp_pm_request_node(pnode_id, > > > > + ZYNQMP_PM_CAPABILITY_ACCESS, 0, > > > > + ZYNQMP_PM_REQUEST_ACK_BLOCKING); > > > > + if (ret < 0) { > > > > + dev_err(dev, "failed to request power node: %u\n", > > > pnode_id); > > > > + return -EINVAL; > > > > + } > > > > + > > > > + ret =3D of_address_to_resource(node, 0, &rsc); > > > > + if (ret < 0) { > > > > + dev_err(dev, "failed to get resource of memory %s", > > > > + of_node_full_name(node)); > > > > + return -EINVAL; > > > > + } > > > > + size =3D resource_size(&rsc); > > > > + va =3D devm_ioremap_wc(dev, rsc.start, size); > > > > + if (!va) > > > > + return -ENOMEM; > > > > + > > > > + /* zero out tcm base address */ > > > > + if (rsc.start & 0xffe00000) { > > > > + /* R5 can't see anything past 0xfffff so wipe it */ > > > > + rsc.start &=3D 0x000fffff; > > > > > > If that is the case why not do: > > > > > > rsc.start &=3D 0x000fffff; > > > > > > unconditionally? if (rsc.start & 0xffe00000) is superfluous. > > > > > > But I thought that actually the R5s could see TCM at both the low > > > address (< 0x000fffff) and also at the high address (i.e. 0xffe00000)= . > > > > > > > > [Ben Levinsky] Here yes can make rsc.start &=3D 0x000fffff undcondition= al. Will > update in v9 as such > > Also, this logic is because this is only for the Xilinx R5 > mappings of TCM banks that are at (from the TCM point of view) 0x0 and > 0x2000 >=20 > What I meant is that as far as I understand from the TRM the RPU should > also be able to access the same banks at the same address of the APU, > which I imagine is in the 0xffe00000 range. But I could be wrong on > this. >=20 > If we could use the same addresses for RPU and APU, it would simplify > this driver. >=20 >=20 > > > > + /* > > > > + * handle tcm banks 1 a and b (0xffe9000 and > > > > + * 0xffeb0000) > > > > + */ > > > > + if (rsc.start & 0x80000) > > > > + rsc.start -=3D 0x90000; > > > > > > It is very unclear to me why we have to do this > > > > > > > > [Ben Levinsky] This is for TCM bank 0B and bank 1B to map them to > 0x00020000 so that the TCM relative addressing lines up. For example > (0xffe90000 & 0x000fffff) - 0x90000 =3D 0x20000 >=20 > Could you please explain the mapping in an in-code comment? > The comment currently mentions 0xffe9000 and 0xffeb0000 but: >=20 > - 0xffe9000 & 0x000fffff =3D 0xe9000 > 0xe9000 - 0x90000 =3D 0x59000 >=20 > - 0xffeb0000 & 0x000fffff =3D 0xeb000 > 0xeb000 - 0x90000 =3D 0xeb000 >=20 > Either way we don't get 0x20000. What am I missing? >=20 [Ben Levinsky] I apologize there is typo in the comment... it should be 0xf= fe90000 and 0xffeb0000 The output is: 0xffe90000 & 0x000fffff =3D 0x90000 0x90000 - 0x90000 =3D 0x0 And=20 0xffeb0000 & 0x000fffff =3D 0xB0000=20 0xB0000 - 0x90000 =3D 0x20000 So these line up for the relative addressing for RPU's view of TCMs >=20 >=20 > > > > + } > > > > + > > > > + dma =3D (dma_addr_t)rsc.start; > > > > > > Given the way the dma parameter is used by > > > rproc_alloc_registered_carveouts, I think it might be best to pass th= e > > > original start address (i.e. 0xffe00000) as dma. > > > > > > > > > > + mem =3D rproc_mem_entry_init(dev, va, dma, (int)size, rsc.start, > > > > + NULL, zynqmp_r5_mem_release, > > > > > > I don't know too much about the remoteproc APIs, but shouldn't you be > > > passing zynqmp_r5_rproc_mem_alloc to it instead of NULL? > > > > > > > > [Ben Levinsky] the difference is that for TCM we have to do make the > relative address work for TCM, so the dma input to rproc_mem_entry_init i= s > different in TCM case. >=20 > The dma address is the address as seen by the RPU, is that right? > So you are trying to set the dma address to something in the range 0 - > 0x20000? >=20 >=20 [Ben Levinsky] yes=20 > > > > + rsc.name); > > > > + if (!mem) > > > > + return -ENOMEM; > > > > + > > > > + return mem; > > > > +} > > > > + > > > > +static int parse_mem_regions(struct rproc *rproc) > > > > +{ > > > > + int num_mems, i; > > > > + struct zynqmp_r5_pdata *pdata =3D rproc->priv; > > > > + struct device *dev =3D &pdata->dev; > > > > + struct device_node *np =3D dev->of_node; > > > > + struct rproc_mem_entry *mem; > > > > + > > > > + num_mems =3D of_count_phandle_with_args(np, "memory-region", > > > NULL); > > > > + if (num_mems <=3D 0) > > > > + return 0; > > > > + for (i =3D 0; i < num_mems; i++) { > > > > + struct device_node *node; > > > > + struct reserved_mem *rmem; > > > > + > > > > + node =3D of_parse_phandle(np, "memory-region", i); > > > > > > Check node !=3D NULL ? > > > > > [Ben Levinsky] will add this in v9 > > > > > > > + rmem =3D of_reserved_mem_lookup(node); > > > > + if (!rmem) { > > > > + dev_err(dev, "unable to acquire memory-region\n"); > > > > + return -EINVAL; > > > > + } > > > > + > > > > + if (strstr(node->name, "vdev0buffer")) { > > > > > > vdev0buffer is not described in the device tree bindings, is that > > > normal/expected? > > > > > > > > [Ben Levinsky] vdev0buffer is not required, as there might be simple > firmware loading with no IPC. Vdev0buffer only needed for IPC. >=20 > OK, good. It should probably still be described in the device tree > binding as optional property. >=20 >=20 > > > > + /* Register DMA region */ > > > > + mem =3D rproc_mem_entry_init(dev, NULL, > > > > + (dma_addr_t)rmem->base, > > > > + rmem->size, rmem->base, > > > > + NULL, NULL, > > > > + "vdev0buffer"); > > > > + if (!mem) { > > > > + dev_err(dev, "unable to initialize memory- > > > region %s\n", > > > > + node->name); > > > > + return -ENOMEM; > > > > + } > > > > + dev_dbg(dev, "parsed %s at %llx\r\n", mem->name, > > > > + mem->dma); > > > > + } else if (strstr(node->name, "vdev0vring")) { > > > > > > Same here > > > > > > > > > > + int vring_id; > > > > + char name[16]; > > > > + > > > > + /* > > > > + * can be 1 of multiple vring IDs per IPC channel > > > > + * e.g. 'vdev0vring0' and 'vdev0vring1' > > > > + */ > > > > + vring_id =3D node->name[14] - '0'; > > > > > > Where does the "14" comes from? Are we sure it is not possible to hav= e a > > > node->name smaller than 14 chars? > > > > > [Ben Levinsky] Presently there are only 2 vrings used per Xilinx OpenAM= P > channel to RPU. In Xilinx kernel we have hard-coded names as these are th= e > only nodes that use it. For example RPU0vdev0vring0 and RPU1vdev0vring0. > Hence we only check for vdev0vring and not a sscanf("%*s%i") to parse out > the vring ID or other, cleaner solution. >=20 > OK, but I think it is best if we use node->name[14] only if we > explicitly check for a string of at least 14 characters. Using strstr, > it could return the string "vdev0vring" which is less than 14 chars, > leading to a bug. >=20 >=20 > > > > > > > + snprintf(name, sizeof(name), "vdev0vring%d", > > > vring_id); > > > > + /* Register vring */ > > > > + mem =3D rproc_mem_entry_init(dev, NULL, > > > > + (dma_addr_t)rmem->base, > > > > + rmem->size, rmem->base, > > > > + > > > zynqmp_r5_rproc_mem_alloc, > > > > + > > > zynqmp_r5_rproc_mem_release, > > > > + name); > > > > + dev_dbg(dev, "parsed %s at %llx\r\n", mem->name, > > > > + mem->dma); > > > > + } else { > > > > + int idx; > > > > + > > > > + /* > > > > + * if TCM update address space for R5 and > > > > + * make xilinx platform mgmt call > > > > + */ > > > > + for (idx =3D 0; idx < ZYNQMP_R5_NUM_TCM_BANKS; > > > idx++) { > > > > + if (tcm_addr_to_pnode[idx][0] =3D=3D rmem- > > > >base) > > > > + break; > > > > > > There is something I don't quite understand. If the memory region to = use > > > is TCM, why would it be also described under reserved-memory? > > > Reserved-memory is for normal memory being reserved, while TCM is not > > > normal memory. Am I missing something? > > > > > [Ben Levinsky] I can change this in v9 as discussed. That is, have no T= CM > under reserved mem. Instead have the banks as nodes in device tree with > status=3D"[enabled|disabled]" and if enabled, then try to add memories in > parse_fw call. > > > > > > > + } > > > > + > > > > + if (idx !=3D ZYNQMP_R5_NUM_TCM_BANKS) { > > > > + mem =3D handle_tcm_parsing(dev, rmem, node, > > > idx); > > > > + } else { > > > > + mem =3D rproc_mem_entry_init(dev, NULL, > > > > + (dma_addr_t)rmem->base, > > > > + rmem->size, rmem->base, > > > > + > > > zynqmp_r5_rproc_mem_alloc, > > > > + > > > zynqmp_r5_rproc_mem_release, > > > > + node->name); > > > > > > This case looks identical to the vdev0vring above. Is the difference > > > really just in the "name"? If so, can we merge the two cases into one= ? > > > no, because the devm_ioremap_wc call has to be done before changing > the dma address to relative for TCM banks. > > > > > > > + } > > > > + > > > > + if (!mem) { > > > > + dev_err(dev, > > > > + "unable to init memory-region %s\n", > > > > + node->name); > > > > + return -ENOMEM; > > > > + } > > > > + } > > > > + rproc_add_carveout(rproc, mem); > > > > + } > > > > + > > > > + return 0; > > > > +} > > > > + > > > > +static int zynqmp_r5_parse_fw(struct rproc *rproc, const struct > firmware > > > *fw) > > > > +{ > > > > + int ret; > > > > + struct zynqmp_r5_pdata *pdata =3D rproc->priv; > > > > + struct device *dev =3D &pdata->dev; > > > > + > > > > + ret =3D parse_mem_regions(rproc); > > > > + if (ret) { > > > > + dev_err(dev, "parse_mem_regions failed %x\n", ret); > > > > + return ret; > > > > + } > > > > + > > > > + ret =3D rproc_elf_load_rsc_table(rproc, fw); > > > > + if (ret =3D=3D -EINVAL) { > > > > + dev_info(dev, "no resource table found.\n"); > > > > + ret =3D 0; > > > > > > Why do we want to continue ignoring the error in this case? > > > > > [Ben Levinsky] as there can be simple firmware loaded onto R5 that do n= ot > have resource table. Resource table only needed for specific IPC case. >=20 > OK, an in-code comment would be good >=20 >=20 > > > > + struct device *dev; > > > > + struct zynqmp_r5_mem *mem; > > > > + int ret; > > > > + struct property *prop; > > > > + const __be32 *cur; > > > > + u32 val; > > > > + int i; > > > > + > > > > + dev =3D &pdata->dev; > > > > + mem =3D devm_kzalloc(dev, sizeof(*mem), GFP_KERNEL); > > > > + if (!mem) > > > > + return -ENOMEM; > > > > + ret =3D of_address_to_resource(node, 0, &mem->res); > > > > + if (ret < 0) { > > > > + dev_err(dev, "failed to get resource of memory %s", > > > > + of_node_full_name(node)); > > > > + return -EINVAL; > > > > + } > > > > + > > > > + /* Get the power domain id */ > > > > + i =3D 0; > > > > + if (of_find_property(node, "pnode-id", NULL)) { > > > > + of_property_for_each_u32(node, "pnode-id", prop, cur, val) > > > > + mem->pnode_id[i++] =3D val; > > > > + } > > > > + list_add_tail(&mem->node, &pdata->mems); > > > > + return 0; > > > > +} > > > > + > > > > +/** > > > > + * zynqmp_r5_release() - ZynqMP R5 device release function > > > > + * @dev: pointer to the device struct of ZynqMP R5 > > > > + * > > > > + * Function to release ZynqMP R5 device. > > > > + */ > > > > +static void zynqmp_r5_release(struct device *dev) > > > > +{ > > > > + struct zynqmp_r5_pdata *pdata; > > > > + struct rproc *rproc; > > > > + struct sk_buff *skb; > > > > + > > > > + pdata =3D dev_get_drvdata(dev); > > > > + rproc =3D pdata->rproc; > > > > + if (rproc) { > > > > + rproc_del(rproc); > > > > + rproc_free(rproc); > > > > + } > > > > + if (pdata->tx_chan) > > > > + mbox_free_channel(pdata->tx_chan); > > > > + if (pdata->rx_chan) > > > > + mbox_free_channel(pdata->rx_chan); > > > > + /* Discard all SKBs */ > > > > + while (!skb_queue_empty(&pdata->tx_mc_skbs)) { > > > > + skb =3D skb_dequeue(&pdata->tx_mc_skbs); > > > > + kfree_skb(skb); > > > > + } > > > > + > > > > + put_device(dev->parent); > > > > +} > > > > + > > > > +/** > > > > + * event_notified_idr_cb() - event notified idr callback > > > > + * @id: idr id > > > > + * @ptr: pointer to idr private data > > > > + * @data: data passed to idr_for_each callback > > > > + * > > > > + * Pass notification to remoteproc virtio > > > > + * > > > > + * Return: 0. having return is to satisfy the idr_for_each() funct= ion > > > > + * pointer input argument requirement. > > > > + **/ > > > > +static int event_notified_idr_cb(int id, void *ptr, void *data) > > > > +{ > > > > + struct rproc *rproc =3D data; > > > > + > > > > + (void)rproc_vq_interrupt(rproc, id); > > > > + return 0; > > > > +} > > > > + > > > > +/** > > > > + * handle_event_notified() - remoteproc notification work funciton > > > > + * @work: pointer to the work structure > > > > + * > > > > + * It checks each registered remoteproc notify IDs. > > > > + */ > > > > +static void handle_event_notified(struct work_struct *work) > > > > +{ > > > > + struct rproc *rproc; > > > > + struct zynqmp_r5_pdata *pdata; > > > > + > > > > + pdata =3D container_of(work, struct zynqmp_r5_pdata, mbox_work); > > > > + > > > > + (void)mbox_send_message(pdata->rx_chan, NULL); > > > > + rproc =3D pdata->rproc; > > > > + /* > > > > + * We only use IPI for interrupt. The firmware side may or may > > > > + * not write the notifyid when it trigger IPI. > > > > + * And thus, we scan through all the registered notifyids. > > > > + */ > > > > + idr_for_each(&rproc->notifyids, event_notified_idr_cb, rproc); > > > > > > This looks expensive. Should we at least check whether the notifyid w= as > > > written as first thing before doing the scan? > > > > > [Ben Levinsky] this will be at most 2 vrings presently per firmware-loa= d and > only done when the firmware is loaded so the latency so should not impact > performace or user >=20 > OK >=20 >=20 > > > > + /* Get R5 power domain node */ > > > > + ret =3D of_property_read_u32(node, "pnode-id", &pdata->pnode_id); > > > > + if (ret) { > > > > + dev_err(dev, "failed to get power node id.\n"); > > > > + goto error; > > > > + } > > > > + > > > > + /* TODO Check if R5 is running */ > > > > + > > > > + /* Set up R5 if not already setup */ > > > > + ret =3D pdata->is_r5_mode_set ? 0 : r5_set_mode(pdata); > > > > + if (ret) { > > > > + dev_err(dev, "failed to set R5 operation mode.\n"); > > > > + return ret; > > > > + } > > > > > > is_r5_mode_set is set by r5_set_mode(), which is only called here. > > > So it looks like this check is important in cases where > > > zynqmp_r5_probe() is called twice for the same R5 node. But I don't > > > think that is supposed to happen? > > > > > [Ben Levinsky] this is needed as there are cases where user can repeate= dly > load different firmware so the check is needed in cases like this where r= pu is > already configured. It is also possible that a user might repeatedly > load/unload the module >=20 > OK