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;
Date:   Mon, 11 Jan 2021 14:40:16 -0700
From:   Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@linaro.org>
To:     peng.fan@nxp.com
Cc:     ohad@wizery.com, bjorn.andersson@linaro.org,
        o.rempel@pengutronix.de, shawnguo@kernel.org,
        s.hauer@pengutronix.de, kernel@pengutronix.de, festevam@gmail.com,
        linux-imx@nxp.com, linux-remoteproc@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        paul@crapouillou.net, matthias.bgg@gmail.com, agross@kernel.org,
        patrice.chotard@st.com, Richard Zhu <hongxing.zhu@nxp.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V5 6/8] remoteproc: imx_rproc: support i.MX8MQ/M
Message-ID: <20210111214016.GI144935@xps15>
References: <20201229033019.25899-1-peng.fan@nxp.com>
 <20201229033019.25899-7-peng.fan@nxp.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20201229033019.25899-7-peng.fan@nxp.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Dec 29, 2020 at 11:30:17AM +0800, peng.fan@nxp.com wrote:
> From: Peng Fan <peng.fan@nxp.com>
> 
> Add i.MX8MQ dev/sys addr map and configuration data structure
> i.MX8MM share i.MX8MQ settings.
> 
> Reviewed-by: Richard Zhu <hongxing.zhu@nxp.com>
> Signed-off-by: Peng Fan <peng.fan@nxp.com>
> Reviewed-by: Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@linaro.org>
> ---
>  drivers/remoteproc/imx_rproc.c | 39 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 39 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/imx_rproc.c b/drivers/remoteproc/imx_rproc.c
> index 3c0075dc1787..f80428afb8a7 100644
> --- a/drivers/remoteproc/imx_rproc.c
> +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/imx_rproc.c
> @@ -88,6 +88,34 @@ struct imx_rproc {
>  	struct clk			*clk;
>  };
>  
> +static const struct imx_rproc_att imx_rproc_att_imx8mq[] = {
> +	/* dev addr , sys addr  , size	    , flags */
> +	/* TCML - alias */
> +	{ 0x00000000, 0x007e0000, 0x00020000, 0 },
> +	/* OCRAM_S */
> +	{ 0x00180000, 0x00180000, 0x00008000, 0 },
> +	/* OCRAM */
> +	{ 0x00900000, 0x00900000, 0x00020000, 0 },
> +	/* OCRAM */
> +	{ 0x00920000, 0x00920000, 0x00020000, 0 },
> +	/* QSPI Code - alias */
> +	{ 0x08000000, 0x08000000, 0x08000000, 0 },
> +	/* DDR (Code) - alias */
> +	{ 0x10000000, 0x80000000, 0x0FFE0000, 0 },
> +	/* TCML */
> +	{ 0x1FFE0000, 0x007E0000, 0x00020000, ATT_OWN },
> +	/* TCMU */
> +	{ 0x20000000, 0x00800000, 0x00020000, ATT_OWN },
> +	/* OCRAM_S */
> +	{ 0x20180000, 0x00180000, 0x00008000, ATT_OWN },
> +	/* OCRAM */
> +	{ 0x20200000, 0x00900000, 0x00020000, ATT_OWN },
> +	/* OCRAM */
> +	{ 0x20220000, 0x00920000, 0x00020000, ATT_OWN },
> +	/* DDR (Data) */
> +	{ 0x40000000, 0x40000000, 0x80000000, 0 },
> +};
> +
>  static const struct imx_rproc_att imx_rproc_att_imx7d[] = {
>  	/* dev addr , sys addr  , size	    , flags */
>  	/* OCRAM_S (M4 Boot code) - alias */
> @@ -138,6 +166,15 @@ static const struct imx_rproc_att imx_rproc_att_imx6sx[] = {
>  	{ 0x80000000, 0x80000000, 0x60000000, 0 },
>  };
>  
> +static const struct imx_rproc_dcfg imx_rproc_cfg_imx8mq = {
> +	.src_reg	= IMX7D_SRC_SCR,
> +	.src_mask	= IMX7D_M4_RST_MASK,
> +	.src_start	= IMX7D_M4_START,
> +	.src_stop	= IMX7D_M4_STOP,
> +	.att		= imx_rproc_att_imx8mq,
> +	.att_size	= ARRAY_SIZE(imx_rproc_att_imx8mq),
> +};
> +
>  static const struct imx_rproc_dcfg imx_rproc_cfg_imx7d = {
>  	.src_reg	= IMX7D_SRC_SCR,
>  	.src_mask	= IMX7D_M4_RST_MASK,
> @@ -496,6 +533,8 @@ static int imx_rproc_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
>  static const struct of_device_id imx_rproc_of_match[] = {
>  	{ .compatible = "fsl,imx7d-cm4", .data = &imx_rproc_cfg_imx7d },
>  	{ .compatible = "fsl,imx6sx-cm4", .data = &imx_rproc_cfg_imx6sx },
> +	{ .compatible = "fsl,imx8mq-cm4", .data = &imx_rproc_cfg_imx8mq },
> +	{ .compatible = "fsl,imx8mm-cm4", .data = &imx_rproc_cfg_imx8mq },

I don't see a patch that adds those to the imx-rproc.txt bindings document.  As far
as I can tell the patch that does that was part of your first patchset [1] but
was not resubmitted after that.

It would be very nice to have an example of how the DT is laid out for those 2
platform, otherwise I have to guess based on the code I am reviewing.

[1]. https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-remoteproc/patch/20200724080813.24884-2-peng.fan@nxp.com/

>  	{},
>  };
>  MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, imx_rproc_of_match);
> -- 
> 2.28.0
>