Received: by 2002:a05:6358:11c7:b0:104:8066:f915 with SMTP id i7csp288275rwl; Wed, 29 Mar 2023 01:37:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: AKy350bWSTbg2f9iBw7dI980t38lDj89FHYoEfFubuR5v/QQdbQj6PqeHj6xIuw7Gr1UCCXR9rWf X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:5a66:b0:932:83fa:d2fe with SMTP id my38-20020a1709065a6600b0093283fad2femr17938023ejc.12.1680079057322; Wed, 29 Mar 2023 01:37:37 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1680079057; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=n0MMQef/iISS2OSEoHbRJYiaAvkxCtr+KHDwLxnOzFPAuIkO3wQLfLe8dEoWBOnW09 yKT6tIc9kQpr7w5+tZr+XHzWSWY6Fmsvqxj3ZD7YZl+GtJEPEkXFNlppoaNq7suLy7HV 5sorEgI2xjjqHOTJLwxaO5vKdbsQ7l+WrD0XRbUUcjK6gicjClk9oadhakTmcX/KZluz yAnQ7Y4SDJlcZvNUeS4eEnK2JUYUhEUwHCZsaAaYOypt7/r+RUMZIw1TFWXqHZ0sKrzF vZvFKDVw8fRdIlu7RGPZ6XjjuLPD2H+aaKeAayd4sHpfJQCSkbtv/BpEoeu7bbe1H2QM Az0w== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:from :references:cc:to:content-language:subject:user-agent:mime-version :date:message-id:dkim-signature; bh=IoOnSGaNz5OmLQolNv+3FwLMW3p0eBmxP+VlDFiZQpE=; b=eZkoPVWTkj8Jqv/HFwN7XGKw7sgao9gYE1nMhSuRIMFTWdQ/p5LVKXiApVekyfH/Gr fc9tR3St3BktRMz3wMuHw5J+OR+QQum5Cpelz+LsJw7kKjw2zUkq2F0RMWyl26XsPEEw j0aH4ZDri7RCMqmJWSj826Owkng4bhbF4A/aw6nijxZlCI98OgVo5OIO75ZEF6VuBY84 ub6a60SQjo5mAGGR4K/rc3D8kwhqv1/EgKpCsxpWbSMC7E1RHnRPoh7pYN7jCcDTUZUs BYr5LBZVHx/2HletgRocxFGQ2Nkl7QkUxcXe/2RceL/RwhSCZQCc9z7l1rArm1AU6VX9 9Vug== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@kernel.org header.s=k20201202 header.b=VmaPjIjy; spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=kernel.org Return-Path: Received: from out1.vger.email (out1.vger.email. [2620:137:e000::1:20]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id n21-20020a170906379500b00946fa684ca9si1001096ejc.758.2023.03.29.01.37.12; Wed, 29 Mar 2023 01:37:37 -0700 (PDT) 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; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@kernel.org header.s=k20201202 header.b=VmaPjIjy; spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S231161AbjC2IWj (ORCPT + 99 others); Wed, 29 Mar 2023 04:22:39 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:56822 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S230451AbjC2IWU (ORCPT ); Wed, 29 Mar 2023 04:22:20 -0400 Received: from dfw.source.kernel.org (dfw.source.kernel.org [IPv6:2604:1380:4641:c500::1]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 04CC055AA; Wed, 29 Mar 2023 01:21:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp.kernel.org (relay.kernel.org [52.25.139.140]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by dfw.source.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 77C1361B6F; Wed, 29 Mar 2023 08:21:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 660B2C433EF; Wed, 29 Mar 2023 08:21:14 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1680078077; bh=L7M8cQ0jg7DMH500oLLnbXfvL+QBd7BT7CRReV2qpqU=; h=Date:Subject:To:Cc:References:From:In-Reply-To:From; b=VmaPjIjyUp1XvwifPDmAvv2blfzbm8MAMNkRMiP6JqYMtp6VWdYGRxZoV10oX0Zwd m3XlQYMGhtRONXhB+cwoguuy4Hg6m0ZypRVuEQcyRv8fKkoOAQ9ilw/CwND9AcBAKo fEupgqGvtUI/mehRBFRpqLo7mW57sjbb4R21MZaLAt04ZxyBYp9SdtFQukjFif4O0/ 6bIfg2Nn/Z2hjjT9bbaGBgO6P16TCjXyYeWajLPJuDfzVR8n+4vW9ZVHo31PYzAEM1 oRJVsYtlpoirb+aFqJSQqidB45fgrLBQHCYzxXLESYfod9u+dc/rgHDqy0FuhyTdki 25EED9IyJ5xAQ== Message-ID: <9acd96ab-7987-5cdc-e65b-9f055948eb4f@kernel.org> Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2023 11:21:11 +0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.9.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 3/3] remoteproc: k3-r5: Use separate compatible string for TI AM62x SoC family Content-Language: en-US To: Devarsh Thakkar , Mathieu Poirier 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 References: <20230310162544.3468365-1-devarsht@ti.com> <20230310162544.3468365-4-devarsht@ti.com> <20230317161757.GA2471094@p14s> <1a24f99a-99c1-bf00-e5e7-1085cfd8faf5@ti.com> From: Roger Quadros In-Reply-To: <1a24f99a-99c1-bf00-e5e7-1085cfd8faf5@ti.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,NICE_REPLY_A,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on lindbergh.monkeyblade.net Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 28/03/2023 19:08, Devarsh Thakkar wrote: > Hi Roger, > > On 28/03/23 13:22, Roger Quadros wrote: >> Hi Devarsh, >> >> On 17/03/2023 18:17, Mathieu Poirier wrote: >>> On Fri, Mar 10, 2023 at 09:55:44PM +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 >>>> --- >>>> 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. >>>> V7: >>>>     - Simplify and rebase on top of base commit "[PATCH v7] remoteproc: k3-r5: Simplify cluster >>>>       mode setting" >>>> --- >>>>   drivers/remoteproc/ti_k3_r5_remoteproc.c | 59 +++++++++++++++++++----- >>>>   1 file changed, 48 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/ti_k3_r5_remoteproc.c b/drivers/remoteproc/ti_k3_r5_remoteproc.c >>>> index c2ec0f432921..df32f6bc4325 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 >> >> What is the difference in device driver behaviour between >> SINGLECPU and SINGLECORE? >> > Yeah there is quite a bit of common code flow between the two but the fundamental difference is that you use CLUSTER_MODE_SINGLECPU when I still didn't get what is the difference between the two from SW point of view. What happens if you just use CLUSTER_MODE_SINGLECPU for AM62 SoC? > you have two R5F cores but you want to use only single R5F core albeit > with using TCM of both the cores whereas CLUSTER_MODE_SINGLECORE is > for the scenario where you have single core R5F's only. > > Also the bindings for CLUSTER_MODE_SINGLECPU are already upstream so did > not want to break them either : https://gitlab.com/linux-kernel/linux-next/-/blob/next-20230328/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/remoteproc/ti%2Ck3-r5f-rproc.yaml#L20. > > Regards > Devarsh > >> If there is no difference then you should not introduce >> a new enum. > >>>>   }; >>>>     /** >>>> @@ -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; >>>> @@ -877,7 +882,8 @@ 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; >>>>           } else { >>>>               /* >>>> @@ -1069,6 +1075,7 @@ 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; >>>>   @@ -1145,6 +1152,8 @@ static int k3_r5_rproc_configure_mode(struct k3_r5_rproc *kproc) >>>>       if (cluster->soc_data->single_cpu_mode) { >>>>           mode = cfg & PROC_BOOT_CFG_FLAG_R5_SINGLE_CORE ? >>>>                   CLUSTER_MODE_SINGLECPU : CLUSTER_MODE_SPLIT; >>>> +    } else if (cluster->soc_data->is_single_core) { >>>> +        mode = CLUSTER_MODE_SINGLECORE; >>> >>> I have commented twice on this before - whether it is soc_data->single_cpu_mode or >>> soc_data->is_single_core, I don't want to see them used elsewhere than in a >>> single function.  Either in probe() or another function, use them once to set >>> cluster->mode and never again. >>> >>> I will silently drop any other patchset that doesn't address this. >>> >>>>       } else { >>>>           mode = cfg & PROC_BOOT_CFG_FLAG_R5_LOCKSTEP ? >>>>                   CLUSTER_MODE_LOCKSTEP : CLUSTER_MODE_SPLIT; >>>> @@ -1264,9 +1273,12 @@ 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; >>>>       } >>>>   @@ -1709,19 +1721,33 @@ static int k3_r5_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) >>>>           /* >>>>            * 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; >>>>       } >>>>   -    if (cluster->mode == CLUSTER_MODE_SINGLECPU && !data->single_cpu_mode) { >>>> +    if  ((cluster->mode == CLUSTER_MODE_SINGLECPU && !data->single_cpu_mode) || >>>> +         (cluster->mode == CLUSTER_MODE_SINGLECORE && !data->is_single_core)) { >>>>           dev_err(dev, "Cluster mode = %d is not supported on this SoC\n", cluster->mode); >>>>           return -EINVAL; >>>>       } >>>>         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; >>>>       } >>>> @@ -1763,18 +1789,28 @@ 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[] = { >>>> @@ -1782,6 +1818,7 @@ 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 >>>> >> -- cheers, -roger