Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20230209063816.2782206-1-peng.fan@oss.nxp.com>
 <2c4997fa-973c-dee4-9b26-6b38a1ca4540@nxp.com> <DU0PR04MB9417A9B81B86FAC0A477063D88DC9@DU0PR04MB9417.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com>
 <73d34c86-7c31-6530-0915-aa470af5d9ca@nxp.com> <20230213175006.GA310433@p14s> <343571ba-faed-35d7-2859-2668391dadb2@oss.nxp.com>
In-Reply-To: <343571ba-faed-35d7-2859-2668391dadb2@oss.nxp.com>
From:   Daniel Baluta <daniel.baluta@gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 22 Mar 2023 13:14:25 +0200
Message-ID: <CAEnQRZC5t=qmo+OJLW+dqZg4gH9cAN=paWDSGbrJb2AvkKBqxg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V3 0/6] remoteproc: imx_rproc: support firmware in DDR
To:     Peng Fan <peng.fan@oss.nxp.com>
Cc:     Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@linaro.org>,
        Iuliana Prodan <iuliana.prodan@nxp.com>,
        Peng Fan <peng.fan@nxp.com>,
        "andersson@kernel.org" <andersson@kernel.org>,
        "shawnguo@kernel.org" <shawnguo@kernel.org>,
        "s.hauer@pengutronix.de" <s.hauer@pengutronix.de>,
        "arnaud.pouliquen@foss.st.com" <arnaud.pouliquen@foss.st.com>,
        Daniel Baluta <daniel.baluta@nxp.com>,
        "kernel@pengutronix.de" <kernel@pengutronix.de>,
        "festevam@gmail.com" <festevam@gmail.com>,
        dl-linux-imx <linux-imx@nxp.com>,
        "linux-remoteproc@vger.kernel.org" <linux-remoteproc@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" 
        <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

> > Second, there should always be a segment that adds the right information to the
> > TMCL.  That segment doesn't need a name, it simply have to be part of the
> > segments that are copied to memory (any kind of memory) so that function
> > rproc_elf_load_segments() can do its job.
> >
> > That pushes the complexity to the tool that generates the firmware image,
> > exactly where it should be.
>
> For i.MX8M, yes. For i.MX93, the M33 ROM needs address of storing stack/pc.
> >
> > This is how I think we should solve this problem based on the very limited
> > information provided with this patchset.  Please let me know if I missed
> > something and we'll go from there.
>
> I am not sure how to proceed on supporting the current firmware. what
> should I continue with current patchset?

I'm in favor of merging this patch as it is. Already gave my
reviewed-by tag above.