| Message ID | 20230829181900.2561194-4-tanmay.shah@amd.com |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
| Series | add zynqmp TCM bindings | expand |
On 9/4/23 2:50 AM, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote: > Hi, > > On 29/8/23 20:19, Tanmay Shah wrote: > > Use new dt bindings to get TCM address and size > > information. Also make sure that driver stays > > compatible with previous device-tree bindings. > > So, if TCM information isn't available in device-tree > > for zynqmp platform, hard-coded address of TCM will > > be used. > > > > New platforms that are compatible with this > > driver must add TCM support in device-tree as per new > > bindings. > > > > Signed-off-by: Tanmay Shah <tanmay.shah@amd.com> > > --- > > drivers/remoteproc/xlnx_r5_remoteproc.c | 279 +++++++++++++++++++----- > > 1 file changed, 221 insertions(+), 58 deletions(-) > > > > /** > > @@ -75,11 +79,17 @@ struct mbox_info { > > * Hardcoded TCM bank values. This will be removed once TCM bindings are > > * accepted for system-dt specifications and upstreamed in linux kernel > > Just curious, for how long this fall back code has to be maintained? > (When/how will we know we can remove it?) I believe we should never remove it. It's important that driver works with old bindings as well. > > > */ > > -static const struct mem_bank_data zynqmp_tcm_banks[] = { > > - {0xffe00000UL, 0x10000UL, PD_R5_0_ATCM, "atcm0"}, /* TCM 64KB each */ > > - {0xffe20000UL, 0x10000UL, PD_R5_0_BTCM, "btcm0"}, > > - {0xffe90000UL, 0x10000UL, PD_R5_1_ATCM, "atcm1"}, > > - {0xffeb0000UL, 0x10000UL, PD_R5_1_BTCM, "btcm1"}, > > +static const struct mem_bank_data zynqmp_tcm_banks_split[] = { > > + {0xffe00000, 0x0, 0x10000, PD_R5_0_ATCM, 0, "atcm0"}, /* TCM 64KB each */ > > + {0xffe20000, 0x20000, 0x10000, PD_R5_0_BTCM, 0, "btcm0"}, > > + {0xffe90000, 0x0, 0x10000, PD_R5_1_ATCM, 0, "atcm1"}, > > + {0xffeb0000, 0x20000, 0x10000, PD_R5_1_BTCM, 0, "btcm1"}, > > +}; >
On 9/6/23 1:20 AM, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote: > On 5/9/23 23:48, Tanmay Shah wrote: > > > > On 9/4/23 2:50 AM, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote: > >> Hi, > >> > >> On 29/8/23 20:19, Tanmay Shah wrote: > >>> Use new dt bindings to get TCM address and size > >>> information. Also make sure that driver stays > >>> compatible with previous device-tree bindings. > >>> So, if TCM information isn't available in device-tree > >>> for zynqmp platform, hard-coded address of TCM will > >>> be used. > >>> > >>> New platforms that are compatible with this > >>> driver must add TCM support in device-tree as per new > >>> bindings. > >>> > >>> Signed-off-by: Tanmay Shah <tanmay.shah@amd.com> > >>> --- > >>> drivers/remoteproc/xlnx_r5_remoteproc.c | 279 +++++++++++++++++++----- > >>> 1 file changed, 221 insertions(+), 58 deletions(-) > >> > >> > >>> /** > >>> @@ -75,11 +79,17 @@ struct mbox_info { > >>> * Hardcoded TCM bank values. This will be removed once TCM bindings are > >>> * accepted for system-dt specifications and upstreamed in linux kernel > >> > >> Just curious, for how long this fall back code has to be maintained? > >> (When/how will we know we can remove it?) > > > > > > I believe we should never remove it. It's important that driver works with old bindings as well. > > Do you mind posting a followup patch updating the comment, > to clarify? Sure I will post the follow up patch with comments updated. I will wait for reviews from Mathieu on driver's patch then will address all the comments in v5. > > Thanks, > > Phil.
Hi Tanmay, On Tue, Aug 29, 2023 at 11:19:00AM -0700, Tanmay Shah wrote: > Use new dt bindings to get TCM address and size > information. Also make sure that driver stays > compatible with previous device-tree bindings. > So, if TCM information isn't available in device-tree > for zynqmp platform, hard-coded address of TCM will > be used. > > New platforms that are compatible with this > driver must add TCM support in device-tree as per new > bindings. > > Signed-off-by: Tanmay Shah <tanmay.shah@amd.com> > --- > drivers/remoteproc/xlnx_r5_remoteproc.c | 279 +++++++++++++++++++----- > 1 file changed, 221 insertions(+), 58 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/xlnx_r5_remoteproc.c b/drivers/remoteproc/xlnx_r5_remoteproc.c > index feca6de68da2..4eb62eb545c2 100644 > --- a/drivers/remoteproc/xlnx_r5_remoteproc.c > +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/xlnx_r5_remoteproc.c > @@ -39,15 +39,19 @@ enum zynqmp_r5_cluster_mode { > * struct mem_bank_data - Memory Bank description > * > * @addr: Start address of memory bank > + * @da: device address for this tcm bank > * @size: Size of Memory bank > * @pm_domain_id: Power-domains id of memory bank for firmware to turn on/off > + * @pm_domain_id2: second core's corresponding TCM's pm_domain_id > * @bank_name: name of the bank for remoteproc framework > */ > struct mem_bank_data { > - phys_addr_t addr; > - size_t size; > + u32 addr; > + u32 da; > + u32 size; Why are the types of @addr and @size changed? > u32 pm_domain_id; > - char *bank_name; > + u32 pm_domain_id2; > + char bank_name[32]; Same > }; > > /** > @@ -75,11 +79,17 @@ struct mbox_info { > * Hardcoded TCM bank values. This will be removed once TCM bindings are > * accepted for system-dt specifications and upstreamed in linux kernel > */ > -static const struct mem_bank_data zynqmp_tcm_banks[] = { > - {0xffe00000UL, 0x10000UL, PD_R5_0_ATCM, "atcm0"}, /* TCM 64KB each */ > - {0xffe20000UL, 0x10000UL, PD_R5_0_BTCM, "btcm0"}, > - {0xffe90000UL, 0x10000UL, PD_R5_1_ATCM, "atcm1"}, > - {0xffeb0000UL, 0x10000UL, PD_R5_1_BTCM, "btcm1"}, > +static const struct mem_bank_data zynqmp_tcm_banks_split[] = { > + {0xffe00000, 0x0, 0x10000, PD_R5_0_ATCM, 0, "atcm0"}, /* TCM 64KB each */ > + {0xffe20000, 0x20000, 0x10000, PD_R5_0_BTCM, 0, "btcm0"}, Here the device address for btcm0 is 0x20000 while in the cover letter it is 0x2000. > + {0xffe90000, 0x0, 0x10000, PD_R5_1_ATCM, 0, "atcm1"}, > + {0xffeb0000, 0x20000, 0x10000, PD_R5_1_BTCM, 0, "btcm1"}, Same > +}; > + > +/* TCM 128KB each */ > +static const struct mem_bank_data zynqmp_tcm_banks_lockstep[] = { > + {0xffe00000, 0x0, 0x20000, PD_R5_0_ATCM, PD_R5_1_ATCM, "atcm0"}, > + {0xffe20000, 0x20000, 0x20000, PD_R5_0_BTCM, PD_R5_1_BTCM, "btcm0"}, > }; > > /** > @@ -422,6 +432,7 @@ static int zynqmp_r5_mem_region_unmap(struct rproc *rproc, > struct rproc_mem_entry *mem) > { > iounmap((void __iomem *)mem->va); > + Spurious change > return 0; > } > > @@ -526,30 +537,6 @@ static int tcm_mem_map(struct rproc *rproc, > /* clear TCMs */ > memset_io(va, 0, mem->len); > > - /* > - * The R5s expect their TCM banks to be at address 0x0 and 0x2000, > - * while on the Linux side they are at 0xffexxxxx. > - * > - * Zero out the high 12 bits of the address. This will give > - * expected values for TCM Banks 0A and 0B (0x0 and 0x20000). > - */ > - mem->da &= 0x000fffff; > - > - /* > - * TCM Banks 1A and 1B still have to be translated. > - * > - * Below handle these two banks' absolute addresses (0xffe90000 and > - * 0xffeb0000) and convert to the expected relative addresses > - * (0x0 and 0x20000). > - */ > - if (mem->da == 0x90000 || mem->da == 0xB0000) > - mem->da -= 0x90000; > - > - /* if translated TCM bank address is not valid report error */ > - if (mem->da != 0x0 && mem->da != 0x20000) { > - dev_err(&rproc->dev, "invalid TCM address: %x\n", mem->da); > - return -EINVAL; > - } > return 0; > } > > @@ -571,6 +558,7 @@ static int add_tcm_carveout_split_mode(struct rproc *rproc) > u32 pm_domain_id; > size_t bank_size; > char *bank_name; > + u32 da; > > r5_core = rproc->priv; > dev = r5_core->dev; > @@ -586,6 +574,7 @@ static int add_tcm_carveout_split_mode(struct rproc *rproc) > bank_name = r5_core->tcm_banks[i]->bank_name; > bank_size = r5_core->tcm_banks[i]->size; > pm_domain_id = r5_core->tcm_banks[i]->pm_domain_id; > + da = r5_core->tcm_banks[i]->da; > > ret = zynqmp_pm_request_node(pm_domain_id, > ZYNQMP_PM_CAPABILITY_ACCESS, 0, > @@ -599,7 +588,7 @@ static int add_tcm_carveout_split_mode(struct rproc *rproc) > bank_name, bank_addr, bank_size); > > rproc_mem = rproc_mem_entry_init(dev, NULL, bank_addr, > - bank_size, bank_addr, > + bank_size, da, > tcm_mem_map, tcm_mem_unmap, > bank_name); > if (!rproc_mem) { > @@ -632,14 +621,14 @@ static int add_tcm_carveout_split_mode(struct rproc *rproc) > */ > static int add_tcm_carveout_lockstep_mode(struct rproc *rproc) > { > + u32 pm_domain_id, da, pm_domain_id2; > struct rproc_mem_entry *rproc_mem; > struct zynqmp_r5_core *r5_core; > int i, num_banks, ret; > - phys_addr_t bank_addr; > - size_t bank_size = 0; > + u32 bank_size = 0; > struct device *dev; > - u32 pm_domain_id; > char *bank_name; > + u32 bank_addr; > > r5_core = rproc->priv; > dev = r5_core->dev; > @@ -653,12 +642,16 @@ static int add_tcm_carveout_lockstep_mode(struct rproc *rproc) > * So, Enable each TCM block individually, but add their size > * to create contiguous memory region. > */ > - bank_addr = r5_core->tcm_banks[0]->addr; > - bank_name = r5_core->tcm_banks[0]->bank_name; > - > for (i = 0; i < num_banks; i++) { > - bank_size += r5_core->tcm_banks[i]->size; > + bank_addr = r5_core->tcm_banks[i]->addr; > + bank_name = r5_core->tcm_banks[i]->bank_name; > + bank_size = r5_core->tcm_banks[i]->size; > pm_domain_id = r5_core->tcm_banks[i]->pm_domain_id; > + pm_domain_id2 = r5_core->tcm_banks[i]->pm_domain_id2; > + da = r5_core->tcm_banks[i]->da; > + > + dev_dbg(dev, "TCM %s addr=0x%x, size=0x%x", > + bank_name, bank_addr, bank_size); > > /* Turn on each TCM bank individually */ > ret = zynqmp_pm_request_node(pm_domain_id, > @@ -668,23 +661,28 @@ static int add_tcm_carveout_lockstep_mode(struct rproc *rproc) > dev_err(dev, "failed to turn on TCM 0x%x", pm_domain_id); > goto release_tcm_lockstep; > } > - } > > - dev_dbg(dev, "TCM add carveout lockstep mode %s addr=0x%llx, size=0x%lx", > - bank_name, bank_addr, bank_size); > - > - /* Register TCM address range, TCM map and unmap functions */ > - rproc_mem = rproc_mem_entry_init(dev, NULL, bank_addr, > - bank_size, bank_addr, > - tcm_mem_map, tcm_mem_unmap, > - bank_name); > - if (!rproc_mem) { > - ret = -ENOMEM; > - goto release_tcm_lockstep; > - } > + /* Turn on each TCM bank individually */ > + ret = zynqmp_pm_request_node(pm_domain_id2, > + ZYNQMP_PM_CAPABILITY_ACCESS, 0, > + ZYNQMP_PM_REQUEST_ACK_BLOCKING); > + if (ret < 0) { > + dev_err(dev, "failed to turn on TCM 0x%x", pm_domain_id2); > + goto release_tcm_lockstep; > + } > > - /* If registration is success, add carveouts */ > - rproc_add_carveout(rproc, rproc_mem); > + /* Register TCM address range, TCM map and unmap functions */ > + rproc_mem = rproc_mem_entry_init(dev, NULL, bank_addr, > + bank_size, da, > + tcm_mem_map, tcm_mem_unmap, > + bank_name); > + if (!rproc_mem) { > + ret = -ENOMEM; > + goto release_tcm_lockstep; > + } > + > + rproc_add_carveout(rproc, rproc_mem); > + } > > return 0; > > @@ -693,7 +691,12 @@ static int add_tcm_carveout_lockstep_mode(struct rproc *rproc) > for (i--; i >= 0; i--) { > pm_domain_id = r5_core->tcm_banks[i]->pm_domain_id; > zynqmp_pm_release_node(pm_domain_id); > + if (pm_domain_id2) { > + pm_domain_id2 = r5_core->tcm_banks[i]->pm_domain_id2; > + zynqmp_pm_release_node(pm_domain_id2); > + } > } > + > return ret; > } > > @@ -800,17 +803,23 @@ static int zynqmp_r5_rproc_prepare(struct rproc *rproc) > */ > static int zynqmp_r5_rproc_unprepare(struct rproc *rproc) > { > + u32 pm_domain_id, pm_domain_id2; > struct zynqmp_r5_core *r5_core; > - u32 pm_domain_id; > int i; > > r5_core = rproc->priv; > > for (i = 0; i < r5_core->tcm_bank_count; i++) { > pm_domain_id = r5_core->tcm_banks[i]->pm_domain_id; > + pm_domain_id2 = r5_core->tcm_banks[i]->pm_domain_id2; > if (zynqmp_pm_release_node(pm_domain_id)) > dev_warn(r5_core->dev, > "can't turn off TCM bank 0x%x", pm_domain_id); > + if (pm_domain_id2 && zynqmp_pm_release_node(pm_domain_id2)) > + dev_warn(r5_core->dev, > + "can't turn off TCM bank 0x%x", pm_domain_id2); > + dev_dbg(r5_core->dev, "pm_domain_id=%d, pm_domain_id2=%d\n", > + pm_domain_id, pm_domain_id2); > } > > return 0; > @@ -883,6 +892,137 @@ static struct zynqmp_r5_core *zynqmp_r5_add_rproc_core(struct device *cdev) > return ERR_PTR(ret); > } > > +static int zynqmp_r5_get_tcm_node_from_dt(struct zynqmp_r5_cluster *cluster) > +{ > + int i, j, tcm_bank_count, ret = -EINVAL; > + struct zynqmp_r5_core *r5_core; > + struct of_phandle_args out_arg; > + struct platform_device *cpdev; > + struct resource *res = NULL; > + u64 abs_addr = 0, size = 0; > + struct mem_bank_data *tcm; > + struct device_node *np, *np1 = NULL; > + struct device *dev; > + > + for (i = 0; i < cluster->core_count; i++) { > + r5_core = cluster->r5_cores[i]; > + dev = r5_core->dev; > + np = dev_of_node(dev); > + > + /* we have address cell 2 and size cell as 2 */ > + ret = of_property_count_elems_of_size(np, "reg", > + 4 * sizeof(u32)); > + if (ret <= 0) { > + ret = -EINVAL; > + goto fail_tcm; > + } > + > + tcm_bank_count = ret; > + > + r5_core->tcm_banks = devm_kcalloc(dev, tcm_bank_count, > + sizeof(struct mem_bank_data *), > + GFP_KERNEL); > + if (!r5_core->tcm_banks) { > + ret = -ENOMEM; > + goto fail_tcm; > + } > + > + r5_core->tcm_bank_count = tcm_bank_count; > + for (j = 0; j < tcm_bank_count; j++) { > + tcm = kzalloc(sizeof(struct mem_bank_data *), GFP_KERNEL); > + if (!tcm) { > + ret = -ENOMEM; > + goto fail_tcm; > + } > + > + r5_core->tcm_banks[j] = tcm; > + /* get tcm address without translation */ > + ret = of_property_read_reg(np, j, &abs_addr, &size); > + if (ret) { > + dev_err(dev, "failed to get reg property\n"); > + goto fail_tcm; > + } > + > + /* > + * remote processor can address only 32 bits > + * so convert 64-bits into 32-bits. This will discard > + * any unwanted upper 32-bits. > + */ > + tcm->da = (u32)abs_addr; > + tcm->size = (u32)size; > + > + cpdev = to_platform_device(dev); > + res = platform_get_resource(cpdev, IORESOURCE_MEM, j); > + if (!res) { > + dev_err(dev, "failed to get tcm resource\n"); > + ret = -EINVAL; > + goto fail_tcm; > + } > + > + tcm->addr = (u32)res->start; > + res = devm_request_mem_region(dev, tcm->addr, tcm->size, res->name); > + if (!res) { > + dev_err(dev, "failed to request tcm resource\n"); > + ret = -EINVAL; > + goto fail_tcm; > + } > + > + memcpy(tcm->bank_name, res->name, ARRAY_SIZE(tcm->bank_name)); > + np = of_node_get(dev_of_node(dev)); > + /* > + * In dt power-domains are described in this order: > + * <RPU core>, <atcm>, <btcm> > + * parse power domains for tcm accordingly > + */ > + of_parse_phandle_with_args(np, "power-domains", > + "#power-domain-cells", > + j + 1, &out_arg); > + tcm->pm_domain_id = out_arg.args[0]; > + of_node_put(out_arg.np); > + > + dev_dbg(dev, "TCM: %s, dma=0x%x, da=0x%x, size=0x%x\n", > + tcm->bank_name, tcm->addr, tcm->da, tcm->size); > + dev_dbg(dev, "tcm pm domain id %d\n", tcm->pm_domain_id); > + > + if (cluster->mode == SPLIT_MODE) > + continue; > + > + /* Turn on core-1's TCM as well */ > + np1 = of_get_next_child(dev_of_node(cluster->dev), > + r5_core->np); > + if (!np1) { > + of_node_put(np1); > + np1 = NULL; > + goto fail_tcm; > + } > + > + of_parse_phandle_with_args(np1, "power-domains", > + "#power-domain-cells", > + j + 1, &out_arg); > + tcm->pm_domain_id2 = out_arg.args[0]; > + of_node_put(out_arg.np); > + dev_dbg(dev, "tcm pm domain id %d\n", tcm->pm_domain_id2); > + } > + } > + > + return 0; > + > +fail_tcm: > + while (i >= 0) { > + r5_core = cluster->r5_cores[i]; > + for (j = 0; j < r5_core->tcm_bank_count; j++) { > + if (!r5_core->tcm_banks) > + continue; > + tcm = r5_core->tcm_banks[j]; > + kfree(tcm); > + } > + kfree(r5_core->tcm_banks); > + i--; > + } > + > + return ret; > +} > + > /** > * zynqmp_r5_get_tcm_node() > * Ideally this function should parse tcm node and store information > @@ -895,12 +1035,20 @@ static struct zynqmp_r5_core *zynqmp_r5_add_rproc_core(struct device *cdev) > */ > static int zynqmp_r5_get_tcm_node(struct zynqmp_r5_cluster *cluster) > { > + const struct mem_bank_data *zynqmp_tcm_banks; > struct device *dev = cluster->dev; > struct zynqmp_r5_core *r5_core; > int tcm_bank_count, tcm_node; > int i, j; > > - tcm_bank_count = ARRAY_SIZE(zynqmp_tcm_banks); > + if (cluster->mode == SPLIT_MODE) { > + zynqmp_tcm_banks = zynqmp_tcm_banks_split; > + tcm_bank_count = ARRAY_SIZE(zynqmp_tcm_banks_split); > + } else { > + zynqmp_tcm_banks = zynqmp_tcm_banks_lockstep; > + tcm_bank_count = ARRAY_SIZE(zynqmp_tcm_banks_lockstep); > + } Why are the changes to get TCM bank information from the DT and enhancement to support lockstep mode in the same patch? > + > > /* count per core tcm banks */ > tcm_bank_count = tcm_bank_count / cluster->core_count; > @@ -951,10 +1099,25 @@ static int zynqmp_r5_core_init(struct zynqmp_r5_cluster *cluster, > enum rpu_tcm_comb tcm_mode) > { > struct device *dev = cluster->dev; > + struct device_node *np; > struct zynqmp_r5_core *r5_core; > int ret, i; > > - ret = zynqmp_r5_get_tcm_node(cluster); > + /* > + * try to get tcm nodes from dt but if fail, use hardcode addresses only > + * for zynqmp platform. New platforms must use dt bindings for TCM. > + */ > + ret = zynqmp_r5_get_tcm_node_from_dt(cluster); > + if (ret) { > + np = of_get_compatible_child(dev_of_node(dev), "xlnx,zynqmp-r5f"); > + if (np) { Why was this check added? So far there are too many unanswered questions with this patchset and as such I will stop here. Mathieu > + ret = zynqmp_r5_get_tcm_node(cluster); > + } else { > + dev_err(dev, "tcm not found\n"); > + return -EINVAL; > + } > + } > + > if (ret < 0) { > dev_err(dev, "can't get tcm node, err %d\n", ret); > return ret; > -- > 2.25.1 >
On 9/6/23 5:02 PM, Tanmay Shah wrote: > HI Mathieu, > > Thanks for reviews. Please find my comments below. > > > On 9/6/23 2:47 PM, Mathieu Poirier wrote: > > Hi Tanmay, > > > > On Tue, Aug 29, 2023 at 11:19:00AM -0700, Tanmay Shah wrote: > > > Use new dt bindings to get TCM address and size > > > information. Also make sure that driver stays > > > compatible with previous device-tree bindings. > > > So, if TCM information isn't available in device-tree > > > for zynqmp platform, hard-coded address of TCM will > > > be used. > > > > > > New platforms that are compatible with this > > > driver must add TCM support in device-tree as per new > > > bindings. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Tanmay Shah <tanmay.shah@amd.com> > > > --- > > > drivers/remoteproc/xlnx_r5_remoteproc.c | 279 +++++++++++++++++++----- > > > 1 file changed, 221 insertions(+), 58 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/xlnx_r5_remoteproc.c b/drivers/remoteproc/xlnx_r5_remoteproc.c > > > index feca6de68da2..4eb62eb545c2 100644 > > > --- a/drivers/remoteproc/xlnx_r5_remoteproc.c > > > +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/xlnx_r5_remoteproc.c > > > @@ -39,15 +39,19 @@ enum zynqmp_r5_cluster_mode { > > > * struct mem_bank_data - Memory Bank description > > > * > > > * @addr: Start address of memory bank > > > + * @da: device address for this tcm bank > > > * @size: Size of Memory bank > > > * @pm_domain_id: Power-domains id of memory bank for firmware to turn on/off > > > + * @pm_domain_id2: second core's corresponding TCM's pm_domain_id > > > * @bank_name: name of the bank for remoteproc framework > > > */ > > > struct mem_bank_data { > > > - phys_addr_t addr; > > > - size_t size; > > > + u32 addr; > > > + u32 da; > > > + u32 size; > > > > Why are the types of @addr and @size changed? > > So, R5 can access 32-bit address range only. Before I had missed this. > > In Devce-tree bindings I am keeping address-cells and size-cells as 2. > > So, out of 64-bits only 32-bits will be used to get address of TCM. Same for size. > > This motivated me to change the type of @addr and @size fields. It doesn't have any side effects. > > > > > > > u32 pm_domain_id; > > > - char *bank_name; > > > + u32 pm_domain_id2; > > > + char bank_name[32]; > > > > Same > > Now we have "reg-names" property in dts so, when that is available, I try to use it. > > So, instead of keeping simple pointer, I copy name from "struct resources". So, I changed bank_name > > from pointer to array. > > > > > > > }; > > > > > > /** > > > @@ -75,11 +79,17 @@ struct mbox_info { > > > * Hardcoded TCM bank values. This will be removed once TCM bindings are > > > * accepted for system-dt specifications and upstreamed in linux kernel > > > */ > > > -static const struct mem_bank_data zynqmp_tcm_banks[] = { > > > - {0xffe00000UL, 0x10000UL, PD_R5_0_ATCM, "atcm0"}, /* TCM 64KB each */ > > > - {0xffe20000UL, 0x10000UL, PD_R5_0_BTCM, "btcm0"}, > > > - {0xffe90000UL, 0x10000UL, PD_R5_1_ATCM, "atcm1"}, > > > - {0xffeb0000UL, 0x10000UL, PD_R5_1_BTCM, "btcm1"}, > > > +static const struct mem_bank_data zynqmp_tcm_banks_split[] = { > > > + {0xffe00000, 0x0, 0x10000, PD_R5_0_ATCM, 0, "atcm0"}, /* TCM 64KB each */ > > > + {0xffe20000, 0x20000, 0x10000, PD_R5_0_BTCM, 0, "btcm0"}, > > > > Here the device address for btcm0 is 0x20000 while in the cover letter it is > > 0x2000. > > Thanks for catching this. This is actually typo in cover-letter. It should be 0x20000 in cover-letter. > > > > > > + {0xffe90000, 0x0, 0x10000, PD_R5_1_ATCM, 0, "atcm1"}, > > > + {0xffeb0000, 0x20000, 0x10000, PD_R5_1_BTCM, 0, "btcm1"}, > > > > Same > > Same here: It should be 0x20000 in cover-letter. > > > > > > +}; > > > + > > > +/* TCM 128KB each */ > > > +static const struct mem_bank_data zynqmp_tcm_banks_lockstep[] = { > > > + {0xffe00000, 0x0, 0x20000, PD_R5_0_ATCM, PD_R5_1_ATCM, "atcm0"}, > > > + {0xffe20000, 0x20000, 0x20000, PD_R5_0_BTCM, PD_R5_1_BTCM, "btcm0"}, > > > }; > > > > > > /** > > > @@ -422,6 +432,7 @@ static int zynqmp_r5_mem_region_unmap(struct rproc *rproc, > > > struct rproc_mem_entry *mem) > > > { > > > iounmap((void __iomem *)mem->va); > > > + > > > > Spurious change > Sure, I will remove it. > > > > > return 0; > > > } > > > > > > @@ -526,30 +537,6 @@ static int tcm_mem_map(struct rproc *rproc, > > > /* clear TCMs */ > > > memset_io(va, 0, mem->len); > > > > > > - /* > > > - * The R5s expect their TCM banks to be at address 0x0 and 0x2000, > > > - * while on the Linux side they are at 0xffexxxxx. > > > - * > > > - * Zero out the high 12 bits of the address. This will give > > > - * expected values for TCM Banks 0A and 0B (0x0 and 0x20000). > > > - */ > > > - mem->da &= 0x000fffff; > > > - > > > - /* > > > - * TCM Banks 1A and 1B still have to be translated. > > > - * > > > - * Below handle these two banks' absolute addresses (0xffe90000 and > > > - * 0xffeb0000) and convert to the expected relative addresses > > > - * (0x0 and 0x20000). > > > - */ > > > - if (mem->da == 0x90000 || mem->da == 0xB0000) > > > - mem->da -= 0x90000; > > > - > > > - /* if translated TCM bank address is not valid report error */ > > > - if (mem->da != 0x0 && mem->da != 0x20000) { > > > - dev_err(&rproc->dev, "invalid TCM address: %x\n", mem->da); > > > - return -EINVAL; > > > - } > > > return 0; > > > } > > > > > > @@ -571,6 +558,7 @@ static int add_tcm_carveout_split_mode(struct rproc *rproc) > > > u32 pm_domain_id; > > > size_t bank_size; > > > char *bank_name; > > > + u32 da; > > > > > > r5_core = rproc->priv; > > > dev = r5_core->dev; > > > @@ -586,6 +574,7 @@ static int add_tcm_carveout_split_mode(struct rproc *rproc) > > > bank_name = r5_core->tcm_banks[i]->bank_name; > > > bank_size = r5_core->tcm_banks[i]->size; > > > pm_domain_id = r5_core->tcm_banks[i]->pm_domain_id; > > > + da = r5_core->tcm_banks[i]->da; > > > > > > ret = zynqmp_pm_request_node(pm_domain_id, > > > ZYNQMP_PM_CAPABILITY_ACCESS, 0, > > > @@ -599,7 +588,7 @@ static int add_tcm_carveout_split_mode(struct rproc *rproc) > > > bank_name, bank_addr, bank_size); > > > > > > rproc_mem = rproc_mem_entry_init(dev, NULL, bank_addr, > > > - bank_size, bank_addr, > > > + bank_size, da, > > > tcm_mem_map, tcm_mem_unmap, > > > bank_name); > > > if (!rproc_mem) { > > > @@ -632,14 +621,14 @@ static int add_tcm_carveout_split_mode(struct rproc *rproc) > > > */ > > > static int add_tcm_carveout_lockstep_mode(struct rproc *rproc) > > > { > > > + u32 pm_domain_id, da, pm_domain_id2; > > > struct rproc_mem_entry *rproc_mem; > > > struct zynqmp_r5_core *r5_core; > > > int i, num_banks, ret; > > > - phys_addr_t bank_addr; > > > - size_t bank_size = 0; > > > + u32 bank_size = 0; > > > struct device *dev; > > > - u32 pm_domain_id; > > > char *bank_name; > > > + u32 bank_addr; > > > > > > r5_core = rproc->priv; > > > dev = r5_core->dev; > > > @@ -653,12 +642,16 @@ static int add_tcm_carveout_lockstep_mode(struct rproc *rproc) > > > * So, Enable each TCM block individually, but add their size > > > * to create contiguous memory region. > > > */ > > > - bank_addr = r5_core->tcm_banks[0]->addr; > > > - bank_name = r5_core->tcm_banks[0]->bank_name; > > > - > > > for (i = 0; i < num_banks; i++) { > > > - bank_size += r5_core->tcm_banks[i]->size; > > > + bank_addr = r5_core->tcm_banks[i]->addr; > > > + bank_name = r5_core->tcm_banks[i]->bank_name; > > > + bank_size = r5_core->tcm_banks[i]->size; > > > pm_domain_id = r5_core->tcm_banks[i]->pm_domain_id; > > > + pm_domain_id2 = r5_core->tcm_banks[i]->pm_domain_id2; > > > + da = r5_core->tcm_banks[i]->da; > > > + > > > + dev_dbg(dev, "TCM %s addr=0x%x, size=0x%x", > > > + bank_name, bank_addr, bank_size); > > > > > > /* Turn on each TCM bank individually */ > > > ret = zynqmp_pm_request_node(pm_domain_id, > > > @@ -668,23 +661,28 @@ static int add_tcm_carveout_lockstep_mode(struct rproc *rproc) > > > dev_err(dev, "failed to turn on TCM 0x%x", pm_domain_id); > > > goto release_tcm_lockstep; > > > } > > > - } > > > > > > - dev_dbg(dev, "TCM add carveout lockstep mode %s addr=0x%llx, size=0x%lx", > > > - bank_name, bank_addr, bank_size); > > > - > > > - /* Register TCM address range, TCM map and unmap functions */ > > > - rproc_mem = rproc_mem_entry_init(dev, NULL, bank_addr, > > > - bank_size, bank_addr, > > > - tcm_mem_map, tcm_mem_unmap, > > > - bank_name); > > > - if (!rproc_mem) { > > > - ret = -ENOMEM; > > > - goto release_tcm_lockstep; > > > - } > > > + /* Turn on each TCM bank individually */ > > > + ret = zynqmp_pm_request_node(pm_domain_id2, > > > + ZYNQMP_PM_CAPABILITY_ACCESS, 0, > > > + ZYNQMP_PM_REQUEST_ACK_BLOCKING); > > > + if (ret < 0) { > > > + dev_err(dev, "failed to turn on TCM 0x%x", pm_domain_id2); > > > + goto release_tcm_lockstep; > > > + } > > > > > > - /* If registration is success, add carveouts */ > > > - rproc_add_carveout(rproc, rproc_mem); > > > + /* Register TCM address range, TCM map and unmap functions */ > > > + rproc_mem = rproc_mem_entry_init(dev, NULL, bank_addr, > > > + bank_size, da, > > > + tcm_mem_map, tcm_mem_unmap, > > > + bank_name); > > > + if (!rproc_mem) { > > > + ret = -ENOMEM; > > > + goto release_tcm_lockstep; > > > + } > > > + > > > + rproc_add_carveout(rproc, rproc_mem); > > > + } > > > > > > return 0; > > > > > > @@ -693,7 +691,12 @@ static int add_tcm_carveout_lockstep_mode(struct rproc *rproc) > > > for (i--; i >= 0; i--) { > > > pm_domain_id = r5_core->tcm_banks[i]->pm_domain_id; > > > zynqmp_pm_release_node(pm_domain_id); > > > + if (pm_domain_id2) { > > > + pm_domain_id2 = r5_core->tcm_banks[i]->pm_domain_id2; > > > + zynqmp_pm_release_node(pm_domain_id2); > > > + } > > > } > > > + > > > return ret; > > > } > > > > > > @@ -800,17 +803,23 @@ static int zynqmp_r5_rproc_prepare(struct rproc *rproc) > > > */ > > > static int zynqmp_r5_rproc_unprepare(struct rproc *rproc) > > > { > > > + u32 pm_domain_id, pm_domain_id2; > > > struct zynqmp_r5_core *r5_core; > > > - u32 pm_domain_id; > > > int i; > > > > > > r5_core = rproc->priv; > > > > > > for (i = 0; i < r5_core->tcm_bank_count; i++) { > > > pm_domain_id = r5_core->tcm_banks[i]->pm_domain_id; > > > + pm_domain_id2 = r5_core->tcm_banks[i]->pm_domain_id2; > > > if (zynqmp_pm_release_node(pm_domain_id)) > > > dev_warn(r5_core->dev, > > > "can't turn off TCM bank 0x%x", pm_domain_id); > > > + if (pm_domain_id2 && zynqmp_pm_release_node(pm_domain_id2)) > > > + dev_warn(r5_core->dev, > > > + "can't turn off TCM bank 0x%x", pm_domain_id2); > > > + dev_dbg(r5_core->dev, "pm_domain_id=%d, pm_domain_id2=%d\n", > > > + pm_domain_id, pm_domain_id2); > > > } > > > > > > return 0; > > > @@ -883,6 +892,137 @@ static struct zynqmp_r5_core *zynqmp_r5_add_rproc_core(struct device *cdev) > > > return ERR_PTR(ret); > > > } > > > > > > +static int zynqmp_r5_get_tcm_node_from_dt(struct zynqmp_r5_cluster *cluster) > > > +{ > > > + int i, j, tcm_bank_count, ret = -EINVAL; > > > + struct zynqmp_r5_core *r5_core; > > > + struct of_phandle_args out_arg; > > > + struct platform_device *cpdev; > > > + struct resource *res = NULL; > > > + u64 abs_addr = 0, size = 0; > > > + struct mem_bank_data *tcm; > > > + struct device_node *np, *np1 = NULL; > > > + struct device *dev; > > > + > > > + for (i = 0; i < cluster->core_count; i++) { > > > + r5_core = cluster->r5_cores[i]; > > > + dev = r5_core->dev; > > > + np = dev_of_node(dev); > > > + > > > + /* we have address cell 2 and size cell as 2 */ > > > + ret = of_property_count_elems_of_size(np, "reg", > > > + 4 * sizeof(u32)); > > > + if (ret <= 0) { > > > + ret = -EINVAL; > > > + goto fail_tcm; > > > + } > > > + > > > + tcm_bank_count = ret; > > > + > > > + r5_core->tcm_banks = devm_kcalloc(dev, tcm_bank_count, > > > + sizeof(struct mem_bank_data *), > > > + GFP_KERNEL); > > > + if (!r5_core->tcm_banks) { > > > + ret = -ENOMEM; > > > + goto fail_tcm; > > > + } > > > + > > > + r5_core->tcm_bank_count = tcm_bank_count; > > > + for (j = 0; j < tcm_bank_count; j++) { > > > + tcm = kzalloc(sizeof(struct mem_bank_data *), GFP_KERNEL); > > > + if (!tcm) { > > > + ret = -ENOMEM; > > > + goto fail_tcm; > > > + } > > > + > > > + r5_core->tcm_banks[j] = tcm; > > > + /* get tcm address without translation */ > > > + ret = of_property_read_reg(np, j, &abs_addr, &size); > > > + if (ret) { > > > + dev_err(dev, "failed to get reg property\n"); > > > + goto fail_tcm; > > > + } > > > + > > > + /* > > > + * remote processor can address only 32 bits > > > + * so convert 64-bits into 32-bits. This will discard > > > + * any unwanted upper 32-bits. > > > + */ > > > + tcm->da = (u32)abs_addr; > > > + tcm->size = (u32)size; > > > + > > > + cpdev = to_platform_device(dev); > > > + res = platform_get_resource(cpdev, IORESOURCE_MEM, j); > > > + if (!res) { > > > + dev_err(dev, "failed to get tcm resource\n"); > > > + ret = -EINVAL; > > > + goto fail_tcm; > > > + } > > > + > > > + tcm->addr = (u32)res->start; > > > + res = devm_request_mem_region(dev, tcm->addr, tcm->size, res->name); > > > + if (!res) { > > > + dev_err(dev, "failed to request tcm resource\n"); > > > + ret = -EINVAL; > > > + goto fail_tcm; > > > + } > > > + > > > + memcpy(tcm->bank_name, res->name, ARRAY_SIZE(tcm->bank_name)); > > > + np = of_node_get(dev_of_node(dev)); > > > + /* > > > + * In dt power-domains are described in this order: > > > + * <RPU core>, <atcm>, <btcm> > > > + * parse power domains for tcm accordingly > > > + */ > > > + of_parse_phandle_with_args(np, "power-domains", > > > + "#power-domain-cells", > > > + j + 1, &out_arg); > > > + tcm->pm_domain_id = out_arg.args[0]; > > > + of_node_put(out_arg.np); > > > + > > > + dev_dbg(dev, "TCM: %s, dma=0x%x, da=0x%x, size=0x%x\n", > > > + tcm->bank_name, tcm->addr, tcm->da, tcm->size); > > > + dev_dbg(dev, "tcm pm domain id %d\n", tcm->pm_domain_id); > > > + > > > + if (cluster->mode == SPLIT_MODE) > > > + continue; > > > + > > > + /* Turn on core-1's TCM as well */ > > > + np1 = of_get_next_child(dev_of_node(cluster->dev), > > > + r5_core->np); > > > + if (!np1) { > > > + of_node_put(np1); > > > + np1 = NULL; > > > + goto fail_tcm; > > > + } > > > + > > > + of_parse_phandle_with_args(np1, "power-domains", > > > + "#power-domain-cells", > > > + j + 1, &out_arg); > > > + tcm->pm_domain_id2 = out_arg.args[0]; > > > + of_node_put(out_arg.np); > > > + dev_dbg(dev, "tcm pm domain id %d\n", tcm->pm_domain_id2); > > > + } > > > + } > > > + > > > + return 0; > > > + > > > +fail_tcm: > > > + while (i >= 0) { > > > + r5_core = cluster->r5_cores[i]; > > > + for (j = 0; j < r5_core->tcm_bank_count; j++) { > > > + if (!r5_core->tcm_banks) > > > + continue; > > > + tcm = r5_core->tcm_banks[j]; > > > + kfree(tcm); > > > + } > > > + kfree(r5_core->tcm_banks); > > > + i--; > > > + } > > > + > > > + return ret; > > > +} > > > + > > > /** > > > * zynqmp_r5_get_tcm_node() > > > * Ideally this function should parse tcm node and store information > > > @@ -895,12 +1035,20 @@ static struct zynqmp_r5_core *zynqmp_r5_add_rproc_core(struct device *cdev) > > > */ > > > static int zynqmp_r5_get_tcm_node(struct zynqmp_r5_cluster *cluster) > > > { > > > + const struct mem_bank_data *zynqmp_tcm_banks; > > > struct device *dev = cluster->dev; > > > struct zynqmp_r5_core *r5_core; > > > int tcm_bank_count, tcm_node; > > > int i, j; > > > > > > - tcm_bank_count = ARRAY_SIZE(zynqmp_tcm_banks); > > > + if (cluster->mode == SPLIT_MODE) { > > > + zynqmp_tcm_banks = zynqmp_tcm_banks_split; > > > + tcm_bank_count = ARRAY_SIZE(zynqmp_tcm_banks_split); > > > + } else { > > > + zynqmp_tcm_banks = zynqmp_tcm_banks_lockstep; > > > + tcm_bank_count = ARRAY_SIZE(zynqmp_tcm_banks_lockstep); > > > + } > > > > Why are the changes to get TCM bank information from the DT and enhancement to > > support lockstep mode in the same patch? > > Actually TCM in lockstep mode was supported before as well. It's just I was using same table in lockstep mode before. > > However, now I am having two tables for split mode and lockstep mode. > > I had to do this as I have introduced "da" field in "struct mem_bank_data" object. This makes it easy to process > > "device address" derived from device-tree. > > And as I have introduced "u32 da", I had to modify table as well and remove hardcoding of "da" calculation in "tcm_mem_map" function. > > As all of this is connected, I have them in same patch. No new functionality is added, but just code refactoring. > > > > + > > > > > > /* count per core tcm banks */ > > > tcm_bank_count = tcm_bank_count / cluster->core_count; > > > @@ -951,10 +1099,25 @@ static int zynqmp_r5_core_init(struct zynqmp_r5_cluster *cluster, > > > enum rpu_tcm_comb tcm_mode) > > > { > > > struct device *dev = cluster->dev; > > > + struct device_node *np; > > > struct zynqmp_r5_core *r5_core; > > > int ret, i; > > > > > > - ret = zynqmp_r5_get_tcm_node(cluster); > > > + /* > > > + * try to get tcm nodes from dt but if fail, use hardcode addresses only > > > + * for zynqmp platform. New platforms must use dt bindings for TCM. > > > + */ > > > + ret = zynqmp_r5_get_tcm_node_from_dt(cluster); > > > + if (ret) { > > > + np = of_get_compatible_child(dev_of_node(dev), "xlnx,zynqmp-r5f"); > > > + if (np) { > > > > Why was this check added? > > We want to maintain backward compatibility with previous bindings only for zynqmp platform. > > So, hardcode table is used only for "zynqmp" platform if getting "reg" information from device-tree fails. > > If node is not compatible with "xlnx,zynqmp-r5f" then it is new platform and we must not use hardcode > > table instead we should fail. > > > > So far there are too many unanswered questions with this patchset and as such I > > will stop here. > > No problem. Please let me know if you have any further questions. Hi Mathieu, Did you want me to document all the comments I mentioned in driver and send new patchset or can we continue reviews ? I am fine either way. Let me know. Thanks, Tanmay > > > > Mathieu > > > > > + ret = zynqmp_r5_get_tcm_node(cluster); > > > + } else { > > > + dev_err(dev, "tcm not found\n"); > > > + return -EINVAL; > > > + } > > > + } > > > + > > > if (ret < 0) { > > > dev_err(dev, "can't get tcm node, err %d\n", ret); > > > return ret; > > > -- > > > 2.25.1 > > >
On 9/7/23 1:08 PM, Mathieu Poirier wrote: > On Wed, Sep 06, 2023 at 05:02:40PM -0500, Tanmay Shah wrote: > > HI Mathieu, > > > > Thanks for reviews. Please find my comments below. > > > > I took another look after reading your comment and found more problems... > > > > > On 9/6/23 2:47 PM, Mathieu Poirier wrote: > > > Hi Tanmay, > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 29, 2023 at 11:19:00AM -0700, Tanmay Shah wrote: > > > > Use new dt bindings to get TCM address and size > > > > information. Also make sure that driver stays > > > > compatible with previous device-tree bindings. > > > > So, if TCM information isn't available in device-tree > > > > for zynqmp platform, hard-coded address of TCM will > > > > be used. > > > > > > > > New platforms that are compatible with this > > > > driver must add TCM support in device-tree as per new > > > > bindings. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Tanmay Shah <tanmay.shah@amd.com> > > > > --- > > > > drivers/remoteproc/xlnx_r5_remoteproc.c | 279 +++++++++++++++++++----- > > > > 1 file changed, 221 insertions(+), 58 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/xlnx_r5_remoteproc.c b/drivers/remoteproc/xlnx_r5_remoteproc.c > > > > index feca6de68da2..4eb62eb545c2 100644 > > > > --- a/drivers/remoteproc/xlnx_r5_remoteproc.c > > > > +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/xlnx_r5_remoteproc.c > > > > @@ -39,15 +39,19 @@ enum zynqmp_r5_cluster_mode { > > > > * struct mem_bank_data - Memory Bank description > > > > * > > > > * @addr: Start address of memory bank > > > > + * @da: device address for this tcm bank > > > > * @size: Size of Memory bank > > > > * @pm_domain_id: Power-domains id of memory bank for firmware to turn on/off > > > > + * @pm_domain_id2: second core's corresponding TCM's pm_domain_id > > > > * @bank_name: name of the bank for remoteproc framework > > > > */ > > > > struct mem_bank_data { > > > > - phys_addr_t addr; > > > > - size_t size; > > > > + u32 addr; > > > > + u32 da; > > > > + u32 size; > > > > > > Why are the types of @addr and @size changed? > > > > So, R5 can access 32-bit address range only. Before I had missed this. > > > > In Devce-tree bindings I am keeping address-cells and size-cells as 2. > > > > So, out of 64-bits only 32-bits will be used to get address of TCM. Same for size. > > > > This motivated me to change the type of @addr and @size fields. It doesn't have any side effects. > > It doesn't have an effect but it also doesn't need to be in this patch, > especially since it is not documented. > > > This patch needs to be broken in 3 parts: > > 1) One patch that deals with the addition of the static mem_bank_data for > lockstep mode. > > 2) One patch that deals with the addition of ->pm_domain_id2 and the potential > bug I may have highlighted below. > > 3) One patch that deals with extracting the TCM information from the DT. > Everything else needs to be in another patch. Thanks Mathieu, for further reviews. Ok I agree with this sequence. I will send all of them as separate patches instead of having them in same series. So, once I get ack on first two, it will make much more easy for me to rebase on those two patches, instead of maintaining whole series. Thanks, Tanmay > > > > > > > > > > > > u32 pm_domain_id; > > > > - char *bank_name; > > > > + u32 pm_domain_id2; > > > > + char bank_name[32]; > > > > > > Same > > > > Now we have "reg-names" property in dts so, when that is available, I try to use it. > > > > So, instead of keeping simple pointer, I copy name from "struct resources". So, I changed bank_name > > > > from pointer to array. > > > > I'll look at that part again when the rest of may comments are addressed. > > > > > > > > > > }; > > > > > > > > /** > > > > @@ -75,11 +79,17 @@ struct mbox_info { > > > > * Hardcoded TCM bank values. This will be removed once TCM bindings are > > > > * accepted for system-dt specifications and upstreamed in linux kernel > > > > */ > > > > -static const struct mem_bank_data zynqmp_tcm_banks[] = { > > > > - {0xffe00000UL, 0x10000UL, PD_R5_0_ATCM, "atcm0"}, /* TCM 64KB each */ > > > > - {0xffe20000UL, 0x10000UL, PD_R5_0_BTCM, "btcm0"}, > > > > - {0xffe90000UL, 0x10000UL, PD_R5_1_ATCM, "atcm1"}, > > > > - {0xffeb0000UL, 0x10000UL, PD_R5_1_BTCM, "btcm1"}, > > > > +static const struct mem_bank_data zynqmp_tcm_banks_split[] = { > > > > + {0xffe00000, 0x0, 0x10000, PD_R5_0_ATCM, 0, "atcm0"}, /* TCM 64KB each */ > > > > + {0xffe20000, 0x20000, 0x10000, PD_R5_0_BTCM, 0, "btcm0"}, > > > > > > Here the device address for btcm0 is 0x20000 while in the cover letter it is > > > 0x2000. > > > > Thanks for catching this. This is actually typo in cover-letter. It should be 0x20000 in cover-letter. > > > > > > > > > + {0xffe90000, 0x0, 0x10000, PD_R5_1_ATCM, 0, "atcm1"}, > > > > + {0xffeb0000, 0x20000, 0x10000, PD_R5_1_BTCM, 0, "btcm1"}, > > > > > > Same > > > > Same here: It should be 0x20000 in cover-letter. > > > > > > > > > +}; > > > > + > > > > +/* TCM 128KB each */ > > > > +static const struct mem_bank_data zynqmp_tcm_banks_lockstep[] = { > > > > + {0xffe00000, 0x0, 0x20000, PD_R5_0_ATCM, PD_R5_1_ATCM, "atcm0"}, > > > > + {0xffe20000, 0x20000, 0x20000, PD_R5_0_BTCM, PD_R5_1_BTCM, "btcm0"}, > > > > }; > > > > > > > > /** > > > > @@ -422,6 +432,7 @@ static int zynqmp_r5_mem_region_unmap(struct rproc *rproc, > > > > struct rproc_mem_entry *mem) > > > > { > > > > iounmap((void __iomem *)mem->va); > > > > + > > > > > > Spurious change > > Sure, I will remove it. > > > > > > > return 0; > > > > } > > > > > > > > @@ -526,30 +537,6 @@ static int tcm_mem_map(struct rproc *rproc, > > > > /* clear TCMs */ > > > > memset_io(va, 0, mem->len); > > > > > > > > - /* > > > > - * The R5s expect their TCM banks to be at address 0x0 and 0x2000, > > > > - * while on the Linux side they are at 0xffexxxxx. > > > > - * > > > > - * Zero out the high 12 bits of the address. This will give > > > > - * expected values for TCM Banks 0A and 0B (0x0 and 0x20000). > > > > - */ > > > > - mem->da &= 0x000fffff; > > > > - > > > > - /* > > > > - * TCM Banks 1A and 1B still have to be translated. > > > > - * > > > > - * Below handle these two banks' absolute addresses (0xffe90000 and > > > > - * 0xffeb0000) and convert to the expected relative addresses > > > > - * (0x0 and 0x20000). > > > > - */ > > > > - if (mem->da == 0x90000 || mem->da == 0xB0000) > > > > - mem->da -= 0x90000; > > > > - > > > > - /* if translated TCM bank address is not valid report error */ > > > > - if (mem->da != 0x0 && mem->da != 0x20000) { > > > > - dev_err(&rproc->dev, "invalid TCM address: %x\n", mem->da); > > > > - return -EINVAL; > > > > - } > > > > return 0; > > > > } > > > > > > > > @@ -571,6 +558,7 @@ static int add_tcm_carveout_split_mode(struct rproc *rproc) > > > > u32 pm_domain_id; > > > > size_t bank_size; > > > > char *bank_name; > > > > + u32 da; > > > > > > > > r5_core = rproc->priv; > > > > dev = r5_core->dev; > > > > @@ -586,6 +574,7 @@ static int add_tcm_carveout_split_mode(struct rproc *rproc) > > > > bank_name = r5_core->tcm_banks[i]->bank_name; > > > > bank_size = r5_core->tcm_banks[i]->size; > > > > pm_domain_id = r5_core->tcm_banks[i]->pm_domain_id; > > > > + da = r5_core->tcm_banks[i]->da; > > > > > > > > ret = zynqmp_pm_request_node(pm_domain_id, > > > > ZYNQMP_PM_CAPABILITY_ACCESS, 0, > > > > @@ -599,7 +588,7 @@ static int add_tcm_carveout_split_mode(struct rproc *rproc) > > > > bank_name, bank_addr, bank_size); > > > > > > > > rproc_mem = rproc_mem_entry_init(dev, NULL, bank_addr, > > > > - bank_size, bank_addr, > > > > + bank_size, da, > > > > tcm_mem_map, tcm_mem_unmap, > > > > bank_name); > > > > if (!rproc_mem) { > > > > @@ -632,14 +621,14 @@ static int add_tcm_carveout_split_mode(struct rproc *rproc) > > > > */ > > > > static int add_tcm_carveout_lockstep_mode(struct rproc *rproc) > > > > { > > > > + u32 pm_domain_id, da, pm_domain_id2; > > > > struct rproc_mem_entry *rproc_mem; > > > > struct zynqmp_r5_core *r5_core; > > > > int i, num_banks, ret; > > > > - phys_addr_t bank_addr; > > > > - size_t bank_size = 0; > > > > + u32 bank_size = 0; > > Why is this changed to a u32 when rproc_mem_entry_init() takes a size_t for > @len? This is especially concerning since add_tcm_carveout_split_mode() still > uses a size_t. > > > > > struct device *dev; > > > > - u32 pm_domain_id; > > > > char *bank_name; > > > > + u32 bank_addr; > > > > > > > > r5_core = rproc->priv; > > > > dev = r5_core->dev; > > > > @@ -653,12 +642,16 @@ static int add_tcm_carveout_lockstep_mode(struct rproc *rproc) > > > > * So, Enable each TCM block individually, but add their size > > > > * to create contiguous memory region. > > > > */ > > > > - bank_addr = r5_core->tcm_banks[0]->addr; > > > > - bank_name = r5_core->tcm_banks[0]->bank_name; > > > > - > > > > for (i = 0; i < num_banks; i++) { > > > > - bank_size += r5_core->tcm_banks[i]->size; > > > > + bank_addr = r5_core->tcm_banks[i]->addr; > > > > + bank_name = r5_core->tcm_banks[i]->bank_name; > > > > + bank_size = r5_core->tcm_banks[i]->size; > > > > pm_domain_id = r5_core->tcm_banks[i]->pm_domain_id; > > > > + pm_domain_id2 = r5_core->tcm_banks[i]->pm_domain_id2; > > > > + da = r5_core->tcm_banks[i]->da; > > > > + > > > > + dev_dbg(dev, "TCM %s addr=0x%x, size=0x%x", > > > > + bank_name, bank_addr, bank_size); > > > > > > > > /* Turn on each TCM bank individually */ > > > > ret = zynqmp_pm_request_node(pm_domain_id, > > > > @@ -668,23 +661,28 @@ static int add_tcm_carveout_lockstep_mode(struct rproc *rproc) > > > > dev_err(dev, "failed to turn on TCM 0x%x", pm_domain_id); > > > > goto release_tcm_lockstep; > > > > } > > > > - } > > > > > > > > - dev_dbg(dev, "TCM add carveout lockstep mode %s addr=0x%llx, size=0x%lx", > > > > - bank_name, bank_addr, bank_size); > > > > - > > > > - /* Register TCM address range, TCM map and unmap functions */ > > > > - rproc_mem = rproc_mem_entry_init(dev, NULL, bank_addr, > > > > - bank_size, bank_addr, > > > > - tcm_mem_map, tcm_mem_unmap, > > > > - bank_name); > > > > - if (!rproc_mem) { > > > > - ret = -ENOMEM; > > > > - goto release_tcm_lockstep; > > > > - } > > > > + /* Turn on each TCM bank individually */ > > > > + ret = zynqmp_pm_request_node(pm_domain_id2, > > > > + ZYNQMP_PM_CAPABILITY_ACCESS, 0, > > > > + ZYNQMP_PM_REQUEST_ACK_BLOCKING); > > > > + if (ret < 0) { > > > > + dev_err(dev, "failed to turn on TCM 0x%x", pm_domain_id2); > > > > + goto release_tcm_lockstep; > > > > + } > > > > > > > > - /* If registration is success, add carveouts */ > > > > - rproc_add_carveout(rproc, rproc_mem); > > > > + /* Register TCM address range, TCM map and unmap functions */ > > > > + rproc_mem = rproc_mem_entry_init(dev, NULL, bank_addr, > > > > + bank_size, da, > > > > + tcm_mem_map, tcm_mem_unmap, > > > > + bank_name); > > The original code adds a single carveout while this code is adding one for each > memory bank? Is this done on purpose or is it a bug? No comment is provided. > > > > > + if (!rproc_mem) { > > > > + ret = -ENOMEM; > > > > + goto release_tcm_lockstep; > > > > + } > > > > + > > > > + rproc_add_carveout(rproc, rproc_mem); > > > > + } > > > > > > > > return 0; > > > > > > > > @@ -693,7 +691,12 @@ static int add_tcm_carveout_lockstep_mode(struct rproc *rproc) > > > > for (i--; i >= 0; i--) { > > > > pm_domain_id = r5_core->tcm_banks[i]->pm_domain_id; > > > > zynqmp_pm_release_node(pm_domain_id); > > > > + if (pm_domain_id2) { > > > > + pm_domain_id2 = r5_core->tcm_banks[i]->pm_domain_id2; > > > > + zynqmp_pm_release_node(pm_domain_id2); > > > > + } > > > > } > > > > + > > > > return ret; > > > > } > > > > > > > > @@ -800,17 +803,23 @@ static int zynqmp_r5_rproc_prepare(struct rproc *rproc) > > > > */ > > > > static int zynqmp_r5_rproc_unprepare(struct rproc *rproc) > > > > { > > > > + u32 pm_domain_id, pm_domain_id2; > > > > struct zynqmp_r5_core *r5_core; > > > > - u32 pm_domain_id; > > > > int i; > > > > > > > > r5_core = rproc->priv; > > > > > > > > for (i = 0; i < r5_core->tcm_bank_count; i++) { > > > > pm_domain_id = r5_core->tcm_banks[i]->pm_domain_id; > > > > + pm_domain_id2 = r5_core->tcm_banks[i]->pm_domain_id2; > > > > if (zynqmp_pm_release_node(pm_domain_id)) > > > > dev_warn(r5_core->dev, > > > > "can't turn off TCM bank 0x%x", pm_domain_id); > > > > + if (pm_domain_id2 && zynqmp_pm_release_node(pm_domain_id2)) > > > > + dev_warn(r5_core->dev, > > > > + "can't turn off TCM bank 0x%x", pm_domain_id2); > > > > + dev_dbg(r5_core->dev, "pm_domain_id=%d, pm_domain_id2=%d\n", > > > > + pm_domain_id, pm_domain_id2); > > > > } > > > > > > > > return 0; > > > > @@ -883,6 +892,137 @@ static struct zynqmp_r5_core *zynqmp_r5_add_rproc_core(struct device *cdev) > > > > return ERR_PTR(ret); > > > > } > > > > > > > > +static int zynqmp_r5_get_tcm_node_from_dt(struct zynqmp_r5_cluster *cluster) > > > > +{ > > > > + int i, j, tcm_bank_count, ret = -EINVAL; > > > > + struct zynqmp_r5_core *r5_core; > > > > + struct of_phandle_args out_arg; > > > > + struct platform_device *cpdev; > > > > + struct resource *res = NULL; > > > > + u64 abs_addr = 0, size = 0; > > > > + struct mem_bank_data *tcm; > > > > + struct device_node *np, *np1 = NULL; > > > > + struct device *dev; > > As far as I can tell @ret, @res and @np1 don't need initilisation. It may also > be the case for @abs_addr and @size. > > > > > + > > > > + for (i = 0; i < cluster->core_count; i++) { > > > > + r5_core = cluster->r5_cores[i]; > > > > + dev = r5_core->dev; > > > > + np = dev_of_node(dev); > > > > + > > > > + /* we have address cell 2 and size cell as 2 */ > > > > + ret = of_property_count_elems_of_size(np, "reg", > > > > + 4 * sizeof(u32)); > > > > + if (ret <= 0) { > > > > + ret = -EINVAL; > > > > + goto fail_tcm; > > > > + } > > > > + > > > > + tcm_bank_count = ret; > > > > + > > > > + r5_core->tcm_banks = devm_kcalloc(dev, tcm_bank_count, > > > > + sizeof(struct mem_bank_data *), > > > > + GFP_KERNEL); > > > > + if (!r5_core->tcm_banks) { > > > > + ret = -ENOMEM; > > > > + goto fail_tcm; > > > > + } > > > > + > > > > + r5_core->tcm_bank_count = tcm_bank_count; > > > > + for (j = 0; j < tcm_bank_count; j++) { > > > > + tcm = kzalloc(sizeof(struct mem_bank_data *), GFP_KERNEL); > > > > + if (!tcm) { > > > > + ret = -ENOMEM; > > > > + goto fail_tcm; > > > > + } > > > > + > > > > + r5_core->tcm_banks[j] = tcm; > > > > + /* get tcm address without translation */ > > > > + ret = of_property_read_reg(np, j, &abs_addr, &size); > > > > + if (ret) { > > > > + dev_err(dev, "failed to get reg property\n"); > > > > + goto fail_tcm; > > > > + } > > > > + > > > > + /* > > > > + * remote processor can address only 32 bits > > > > + * so convert 64-bits into 32-bits. This will discard > > > > + * any unwanted upper 32-bits. > > > > + */ > > > > + tcm->da = (u32)abs_addr; > > > > + tcm->size = (u32)size; > > > > + > > > > + cpdev = to_platform_device(dev); > > > > + res = platform_get_resource(cpdev, IORESOURCE_MEM, j); > > > > + if (!res) { > > > > + dev_err(dev, "failed to get tcm resource\n"); > > > > + ret = -EINVAL; > > > > + goto fail_tcm; > > > > + } > > > > + > > > > + tcm->addr = (u32)res->start; > > > > + res = devm_request_mem_region(dev, tcm->addr, tcm->size, res->name); > > > > + if (!res) { > > > > + dev_err(dev, "failed to request tcm resource\n"); > > > > + ret = -EINVAL; > > > > + goto fail_tcm; > > > > + } > > > > + > > > > + memcpy(tcm->bank_name, res->name, ARRAY_SIZE(tcm->bank_name)); > > > > + np = of_node_get(dev_of_node(dev)); > > > > + /* > > > > + * In dt power-domains are described in this order: > > > > + * <RPU core>, <atcm>, <btcm> > > > > + * parse power domains for tcm accordingly > > > > + */ > > > > + of_parse_phandle_with_args(np, "power-domains", > > > > + "#power-domain-cells", > > > > + j + 1, &out_arg); > > > > + tcm->pm_domain_id = out_arg.args[0]; > > > > + of_node_put(out_arg.np); > > > > + > > > > + dev_dbg(dev, "TCM: %s, dma=0x%x, da=0x%x, size=0x%x\n", > > > > + tcm->bank_name, tcm->addr, tcm->da, tcm->size); > > > > + dev_dbg(dev, "tcm pm domain id %d\n", tcm->pm_domain_id); > > > > + > > > > + if (cluster->mode == SPLIT_MODE) > > > > + continue; > > > > + > > > > + /* Turn on core-1's TCM as well */ > > > > + np1 = of_get_next_child(dev_of_node(cluster->dev), > > > > + r5_core->np); > > > > + if (!np1) { > > > > + of_node_put(np1); > > > > + np1 = NULL; > > > > + goto fail_tcm; > > > > + } > > > > + > > > > + of_parse_phandle_with_args(np1, "power-domains", > > > > + "#power-domain-cells", > > > > + j + 1, &out_arg); > > > > + tcm->pm_domain_id2 = out_arg.args[0]; > > > > + of_node_put(out_arg.np); > > > > + dev_dbg(dev, "tcm pm domain id %d\n", tcm->pm_domain_id2); > > > > + } > > > > + } > > > > + > > > > + return 0; > > > > + > > > > +fail_tcm: > > > > + while (i >= 0) { > > > > + r5_core = cluster->r5_cores[i]; > > > > + for (j = 0; j < r5_core->tcm_bank_count; j++) { > > > > + if (!r5_core->tcm_banks) > > > > + continue; > > > > + tcm = r5_core->tcm_banks[j]; > > > > + kfree(tcm); > > > > + } > > > > + kfree(r5_core->tcm_banks); > > > > + i--; > > > > + } > > > > + > > > > + return ret; > > > > +} > > > > + > > > > /** > > > > * zynqmp_r5_get_tcm_node() > > > > * Ideally this function should parse tcm node and store information > > > > @@ -895,12 +1035,20 @@ static struct zynqmp_r5_core *zynqmp_r5_add_rproc_core(struct device *cdev) > > > > */ > > > > static int zynqmp_r5_get_tcm_node(struct zynqmp_r5_cluster *cluster) > > > > { > > > > + const struct mem_bank_data *zynqmp_tcm_banks; > > > > struct device *dev = cluster->dev; > > > > struct zynqmp_r5_core *r5_core; > > > > int tcm_bank_count, tcm_node; > > > > int i, j; > > > > > > > > - tcm_bank_count = ARRAY_SIZE(zynqmp_tcm_banks); > > > > + if (cluster->mode == SPLIT_MODE) { > > > > + zynqmp_tcm_banks = zynqmp_tcm_banks_split; > > > > + tcm_bank_count = ARRAY_SIZE(zynqmp_tcm_banks_split); > > > > + } else { > > > > + zynqmp_tcm_banks = zynqmp_tcm_banks_lockstep; > > > > + tcm_bank_count = ARRAY_SIZE(zynqmp_tcm_banks_lockstep); > > > > + } > > > > > > Why are the changes to get TCM bank information from the DT and enhancement to > > > support lockstep mode in the same patch? > > > > Actually TCM in lockstep mode was supported before as well. It's just I was using same table in lockstep mode before. > > > > However, now I am having two tables for split mode and lockstep mode. > > > > I had to do this as I have introduced "da" field in "struct mem_bank_data" object. This makes it easy to process > > > > "device address" derived from device-tree. > > > > And as I have introduced "u32 da", I had to modify table as well and remove hardcoding of "da" calculation in "tcm_mem_map" function. > > > > As all of this is connected, I have them in same patch. No new functionality is added, but just code refactoring. > > > > > > + > > > > > > > > /* count per core tcm banks */ > > > > tcm_bank_count = tcm_bank_count / cluster->core_count; > > > > @@ -951,10 +1099,25 @@ static int zynqmp_r5_core_init(struct zynqmp_r5_cluster *cluster, > > > > enum rpu_tcm_comb tcm_mode) > > > > { > > > > struct device *dev = cluster->dev; > > > > + struct device_node *np; > > > > struct zynqmp_r5_core *r5_core; > > > > int ret, i; > > > > > > > > - ret = zynqmp_r5_get_tcm_node(cluster); > > > > + /* > > > > + * try to get tcm nodes from dt but if fail, use hardcode addresses only > > > > + * for zynqmp platform. New platforms must use dt bindings for TCM. > > > > + */ > > > > + ret = zynqmp_r5_get_tcm_node_from_dt(cluster); > > > > + if (ret) { > > > > + np = of_get_compatible_child(dev_of_node(dev), "xlnx,zynqmp-r5f"); > > > > + if (np) { > > > > > > Why was this check added? > > > > We want to maintain backward compatibility with previous bindings only for zynqmp platform. > > > > That check has nothing to do with backward compatibility. > > > So, hardcode table is used only for "zynqmp" platform if getting "reg" information from device-tree fails. > > > > If node is not compatible with "xlnx,zynqmp-r5f" then it is new platform and we must not use hardcode > > > > table instead we should fail. > > > > So this is the real reason for the check, but zynqmp-r5f is still the only > platform supported by this driver. Please remove and re-introduce if/when a new > platform is added. > > > > > > So far there are too many unanswered questions with this patchset and as such I > > > will stop here. > > > > No problem. Please let me know if you have any further questions. > > > > > > > Mathieu > > > > > > > + ret = zynqmp_r5_get_tcm_node(cluster); > > > > + } else { > > > > + dev_err(dev, "tcm not found\n"); > > > > + return -EINVAL; > > > > + } > > > > + } > > > > + > > > > if (ret < 0) { > > > > dev_err(dev, "can't get tcm node, err %d\n", ret); > > > > return ret; > > > > -- > > > > 2.25.1 > > > >
On Thu, 7 Sept 2023 at 17:11, Tanmay Shah <tanmay.shah@amd.com> wrote: > > > On 9/7/23 1:08 PM, Mathieu Poirier wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 06, 2023 at 05:02:40PM -0500, Tanmay Shah wrote: > > > HI Mathieu, > > > > > > Thanks for reviews. Please find my comments below. > > > > > > > I took another look after reading your comment and found more problems... > > > > > > > > On 9/6/23 2:47 PM, Mathieu Poirier wrote: > > > > Hi Tanmay, > > > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 29, 2023 at 11:19:00AM -0700, Tanmay Shah wrote: > > > > > Use new dt bindings to get TCM address and size > > > > > information. Also make sure that driver stays > > > > > compatible with previous device-tree bindings. > > > > > So, if TCM information isn't available in device-tree > > > > > for zynqmp platform, hard-coded address of TCM will > > > > > be used. > > > > > > > > > > New platforms that are compatible with this > > > > > driver must add TCM support in device-tree as per new > > > > > bindings. > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Tanmay Shah <tanmay.shah@amd.com> > > > > > --- > > > > > drivers/remoteproc/xlnx_r5_remoteproc.c | 279 +++++++++++++++++++----- > > > > > 1 file changed, 221 insertions(+), 58 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/xlnx_r5_remoteproc.c b/drivers/remoteproc/xlnx_r5_remoteproc.c > > > > > index feca6de68da2..4eb62eb545c2 100644 > > > > > --- a/drivers/remoteproc/xlnx_r5_remoteproc.c > > > > > +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/xlnx_r5_remoteproc.c > > > > > @@ -39,15 +39,19 @@ enum zynqmp_r5_cluster_mode { > > > > > * struct mem_bank_data - Memory Bank description > > > > > * > > > > > * @addr: Start address of memory bank > > > > > + * @da: device address for this tcm bank > > > > > * @size: Size of Memory bank > > > > > * @pm_domain_id: Power-domains id of memory bank for firmware to turn on/off > > > > > + * @pm_domain_id2: second core's corresponding TCM's pm_domain_id > > > > > * @bank_name: name of the bank for remoteproc framework > > > > > */ > > > > > struct mem_bank_data { > > > > > - phys_addr_t addr; > > > > > - size_t size; > > > > > + u32 addr; > > > > > + u32 da; > > > > > + u32 size; > > > > > > > > Why are the types of @addr and @size changed? > > > > > > So, R5 can access 32-bit address range only. Before I had missed this. > > > > > > In Devce-tree bindings I am keeping address-cells and size-cells as 2. > > > > > > So, out of 64-bits only 32-bits will be used to get address of TCM. Same for size. > > > > > > This motivated me to change the type of @addr and @size fields. It doesn't have any side effects. > > > > It doesn't have an effect but it also doesn't need to be in this patch, > > especially since it is not documented. > > > > > > This patch needs to be broken in 3 parts: > > > > 1) One patch that deals with the addition of the static mem_bank_data for > > lockstep mode. > > > > 2) One patch that deals with the addition of ->pm_domain_id2 and the potential > > bug I may have highlighted below. > > > > 3) One patch that deals with extracting the TCM information from the DT. > > Everything else needs to be in another patch. > > Thanks Mathieu, for further reviews. > > > Ok I agree with this sequence. I will send all of them as separate patches instead of having them in same series. > I am fine with individual patches or as part of the same series, as long as patch 03 gets broken up in accordance with what I wrote above. > So, once I get ack on first two, it will make much more easy for me to rebase on those two patches, instead of > > maintaining whole series. > > > Thanks, > > Tanmay > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > u32 pm_domain_id; > > > > > - char *bank_name; > > > > > + u32 pm_domain_id2; > > > > > + char bank_name[32]; > > > > > > > > Same > > > > > > Now we have "reg-names" property in dts so, when that is available, I try to use it. > > > > > > So, instead of keeping simple pointer, I copy name from "struct resources". So, I changed bank_name > > > > > > from pointer to array. > > > > > > > I'll look at that part again when the rest of may comments are addressed. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > }; > > > > > > > > > > /** > > > > > @@ -75,11 +79,17 @@ struct mbox_info { > > > > > * Hardcoded TCM bank values. This will be removed once TCM bindings are > > > > > * accepted for system-dt specifications and upstreamed in linux kernel > > > > > */ > > > > > -static const struct mem_bank_data zynqmp_tcm_banks[] = { > > > > > - {0xffe00000UL, 0x10000UL, PD_R5_0_ATCM, "atcm0"}, /* TCM 64KB each */ > > > > > - {0xffe20000UL, 0x10000UL, PD_R5_0_BTCM, "btcm0"}, > > > > > - {0xffe90000UL, 0x10000UL, PD_R5_1_ATCM, "atcm1"}, > > > > > - {0xffeb0000UL, 0x10000UL, PD_R5_1_BTCM, "btcm1"}, > > > > > +static const struct mem_bank_data zynqmp_tcm_banks_split[] = { > > > > > + {0xffe00000, 0x0, 0x10000, PD_R5_0_ATCM, 0, "atcm0"}, /* TCM 64KB each */ > > > > > + {0xffe20000, 0x20000, 0x10000, PD_R5_0_BTCM, 0, "btcm0"}, > > > > > > > > Here the device address for btcm0 is 0x20000 while in the cover letter it is > > > > 0x2000. > > > > > > Thanks for catching this. This is actually typo in cover-letter. It should be 0x20000 in cover-letter. > > > > > > > > > > > > + {0xffe90000, 0x0, 0x10000, PD_R5_1_ATCM, 0, "atcm1"}, > > > > > + {0xffeb0000, 0x20000, 0x10000, PD_R5_1_BTCM, 0, "btcm1"}, > > > > > > > > Same > > > > > > Same here: It should be 0x20000 in cover-letter. > > > > > > > > > > > > +}; > > > > > + > > > > > +/* TCM 128KB each */ > > > > > +static const struct mem_bank_data zynqmp_tcm_banks_lockstep[] = { > > > > > + {0xffe00000, 0x0, 0x20000, PD_R5_0_ATCM, PD_R5_1_ATCM, "atcm0"}, > > > > > + {0xffe20000, 0x20000, 0x20000, PD_R5_0_BTCM, PD_R5_1_BTCM, "btcm0"}, > > > > > }; > > > > > > > > > > /** > > > > > @@ -422,6 +432,7 @@ static int zynqmp_r5_mem_region_unmap(struct rproc *rproc, > > > > > struct rproc_mem_entry *mem) > > > > > { > > > > > iounmap((void __iomem *)mem->va); > > > > > + > > > > > > > > Spurious change > > > Sure, I will remove it. > > > > > > > > > return 0; > > > > > } > > > > > > > > > > @@ -526,30 +537,6 @@ static int tcm_mem_map(struct rproc *rproc, > > > > > /* clear TCMs */ > > > > > memset_io(va, 0, mem->len); > > > > > > > > > > - /* > > > > > - * The R5s expect their TCM banks to be at address 0x0 and 0x2000, > > > > > - * while on the Linux side they are at 0xffexxxxx. > > > > > - * > > > > > - * Zero out the high 12 bits of the address. This will give > > > > > - * expected values for TCM Banks 0A and 0B (0x0 and 0x20000). > > > > > - */ > > > > > - mem->da &= 0x000fffff; > > > > > - > > > > > - /* > > > > > - * TCM Banks 1A and 1B still have to be translated. > > > > > - * > > > > > - * Below handle these two banks' absolute addresses (0xffe90000 and > > > > > - * 0xffeb0000) and convert to the expected relative addresses > > > > > - * (0x0 and 0x20000). > > > > > - */ > > > > > - if (mem->da == 0x90000 || mem->da == 0xB0000) > > > > > - mem->da -= 0x90000; > > > > > - > > > > > - /* if translated TCM bank address is not valid report error */ > > > > > - if (mem->da != 0x0 && mem->da != 0x20000) { > > > > > - dev_err(&rproc->dev, "invalid TCM address: %x\n", mem->da); > > > > > - return -EINVAL; > > > > > - } > > > > > return 0; > > > > > } > > > > > > > > > > @@ -571,6 +558,7 @@ static int add_tcm_carveout_split_mode(struct rproc *rproc) > > > > > u32 pm_domain_id; > > > > > size_t bank_size; > > > > > char *bank_name; > > > > > + u32 da; > > > > > > > > > > r5_core = rproc->priv; > > > > > dev = r5_core->dev; > > > > > @@ -586,6 +574,7 @@ static int add_tcm_carveout_split_mode(struct rproc *rproc) > > > > > bank_name = r5_core->tcm_banks[i]->bank_name; > > > > > bank_size = r5_core->tcm_banks[i]->size; > > > > > pm_domain_id = r5_core->tcm_banks[i]->pm_domain_id; > > > > > + da = r5_core->tcm_banks[i]->da; > > > > > > > > > > ret = zynqmp_pm_request_node(pm_domain_id, > > > > > ZYNQMP_PM_CAPABILITY_ACCESS, 0, > > > > > @@ -599,7 +588,7 @@ static int add_tcm_carveout_split_mode(struct rproc *rproc) > > > > > bank_name, bank_addr, bank_size); > > > > > > > > > > rproc_mem = rproc_mem_entry_init(dev, NULL, bank_addr, > > > > > - bank_size, bank_addr, > > > > > + bank_size, da, > > > > > tcm_mem_map, tcm_mem_unmap, > > > > > bank_name); > > > > > if (!rproc_mem) { > > > > > @@ -632,14 +621,14 @@ static int add_tcm_carveout_split_mode(struct rproc *rproc) > > > > > */ > > > > > static int add_tcm_carveout_lockstep_mode(struct rproc *rproc) > > > > > { > > > > > + u32 pm_domain_id, da, pm_domain_id2; > > > > > struct rproc_mem_entry *rproc_mem; > > > > > struct zynqmp_r5_core *r5_core; > > > > > int i, num_banks, ret; > > > > > - phys_addr_t bank_addr; > > > > > - size_t bank_size = 0; > > > > > + u32 bank_size = 0; > > > > Why is this changed to a u32 when rproc_mem_entry_init() takes a size_t for > > @len? This is especially concerning since add_tcm_carveout_split_mode() still > > uses a size_t. > > > > > > > struct device *dev; > > > > > - u32 pm_domain_id; > > > > > char *bank_name; > > > > > + u32 bank_addr; > > > > > > > > > > r5_core = rproc->priv; > > > > > dev = r5_core->dev; > > > > > @@ -653,12 +642,16 @@ static int add_tcm_carveout_lockstep_mode(struct rproc *rproc) > > > > > * So, Enable each TCM block individually, but add their size > > > > > * to create contiguous memory region. > > > > > */ > > > > > - bank_addr = r5_core->tcm_banks[0]->addr; > > > > > - bank_name = r5_core->tcm_banks[0]->bank_name; > > > > > - > > > > > for (i = 0; i < num_banks; i++) { > > > > > - bank_size += r5_core->tcm_banks[i]->size; > > > > > + bank_addr = r5_core->tcm_banks[i]->addr; > > > > > + bank_name = r5_core->tcm_banks[i]->bank_name; > > > > > + bank_size = r5_core->tcm_banks[i]->size; > > > > > pm_domain_id = r5_core->tcm_banks[i]->pm_domain_id; > > > > > + pm_domain_id2 = r5_core->tcm_banks[i]->pm_domain_id2; > > > > > + da = r5_core->tcm_banks[i]->da; > > > > > + > > > > > + dev_dbg(dev, "TCM %s addr=0x%x, size=0x%x", > > > > > + bank_name, bank_addr, bank_size); > > > > > > > > > > /* Turn on each TCM bank individually */ > > > > > ret = zynqmp_pm_request_node(pm_domain_id, > > > > > @@ -668,23 +661,28 @@ static int add_tcm_carveout_lockstep_mode(struct rproc *rproc) > > > > > dev_err(dev, "failed to turn on TCM 0x%x", pm_domain_id); > > > > > goto release_tcm_lockstep; > > > > > } > > > > > - } > > > > > > > > > > - dev_dbg(dev, "TCM add carveout lockstep mode %s addr=0x%llx, size=0x%lx", > > > > > - bank_name, bank_addr, bank_size); > > > > > - > > > > > - /* Register TCM address range, TCM map and unmap functions */ > > > > > - rproc_mem = rproc_mem_entry_init(dev, NULL, bank_addr, > > > > > - bank_size, bank_addr, > > > > > - tcm_mem_map, tcm_mem_unmap, > > > > > - bank_name); > > > > > - if (!rproc_mem) { > > > > > - ret = -ENOMEM; > > > > > - goto release_tcm_lockstep; > > > > > - } > > > > > + /* Turn on each TCM bank individually */ > > > > > + ret = zynqmp_pm_request_node(pm_domain_id2, > > > > > + ZYNQMP_PM_CAPABILITY_ACCESS, 0, > > > > > + ZYNQMP_PM_REQUEST_ACK_BLOCKING); > > > > > + if (ret < 0) { > > > > > + dev_err(dev, "failed to turn on TCM 0x%x", pm_domain_id2); > > > > > + goto release_tcm_lockstep; > > > > > + } > > > > > > > > > > - /* If registration is success, add carveouts */ > > > > > - rproc_add_carveout(rproc, rproc_mem); > > > > > + /* Register TCM address range, TCM map and unmap functions */ > > > > > + rproc_mem = rproc_mem_entry_init(dev, NULL, bank_addr, > > > > > + bank_size, da, > > > > > + tcm_mem_map, tcm_mem_unmap, > > > > > + bank_name); > > > > The original code adds a single carveout while this code is adding one for each > > memory bank? Is this done on purpose or is it a bug? No comment is provided. > > > > > > > + if (!rproc_mem) { > > > > > + ret = -ENOMEM; > > > > > + goto release_tcm_lockstep; > > > > > + } > > > > > + > > > > > + rproc_add_carveout(rproc, rproc_mem); > > > > > + } > > > > > > > > > > return 0; > > > > > > > > > > @@ -693,7 +691,12 @@ static int add_tcm_carveout_lockstep_mode(struct rproc *rproc) > > > > > for (i--; i >= 0; i--) { > > > > > pm_domain_id = r5_core->tcm_banks[i]->pm_domain_id; > > > > > zynqmp_pm_release_node(pm_domain_id); > > > > > + if (pm_domain_id2) { > > > > > + pm_domain_id2 = r5_core->tcm_banks[i]->pm_domain_id2; > > > > > + zynqmp_pm_release_node(pm_domain_id2); > > > > > + } > > > > > } > > > > > + > > > > > return ret; > > > > > } > > > > > > > > > > @@ -800,17 +803,23 @@ static int zynqmp_r5_rproc_prepare(struct rproc *rproc) > > > > > */ > > > > > static int zynqmp_r5_rproc_unprepare(struct rproc *rproc) > > > > > { > > > > > + u32 pm_domain_id, pm_domain_id2; > > > > > struct zynqmp_r5_core *r5_core; > > > > > - u32 pm_domain_id; > > > > > int i; > > > > > > > > > > r5_core = rproc->priv; > > > > > > > > > > for (i = 0; i < r5_core->tcm_bank_count; i++) { > > > > > pm_domain_id = r5_core->tcm_banks[i]->pm_domain_id; > > > > > + pm_domain_id2 = r5_core->tcm_banks[i]->pm_domain_id2; > > > > > if (zynqmp_pm_release_node(pm_domain_id)) > > > > > dev_warn(r5_core->dev, > > > > > "can't turn off TCM bank 0x%x", pm_domain_id); > > > > > + if (pm_domain_id2 && zynqmp_pm_release_node(pm_domain_id2)) > > > > > + dev_warn(r5_core->dev, > > > > > + "can't turn off TCM bank 0x%x", pm_domain_id2); > > > > > + dev_dbg(r5_core->dev, "pm_domain_id=%d, pm_domain_id2=%d\n", > > > > > + pm_domain_id, pm_domain_id2); > > > > > } > > > > > > > > > > return 0; > > > > > @@ -883,6 +892,137 @@ static struct zynqmp_r5_core *zynqmp_r5_add_rproc_core(struct device *cdev) > > > > > return ERR_PTR(ret); > > > > > } > > > > > > > > > > +static int zynqmp_r5_get_tcm_node_from_dt(struct zynqmp_r5_cluster *cluster) > > > > > +{ > > > > > + int i, j, tcm_bank_count, ret = -EINVAL; > > > > > + struct zynqmp_r5_core *r5_core; > > > > > + struct of_phandle_args out_arg; > > > > > + struct platform_device *cpdev; > > > > > + struct resource *res = NULL; > > > > > + u64 abs_addr = 0, size = 0; > > > > > + struct mem_bank_data *tcm; > > > > > + struct device_node *np, *np1 = NULL; > > > > > + struct device *dev; > > > > As far as I can tell @ret, @res and @np1 don't need initilisation. It may also > > be the case for @abs_addr and @size. > > > > > > > + > > > > > + for (i = 0; i < cluster->core_count; i++) { > > > > > + r5_core = cluster->r5_cores[i]; > > > > > + dev = r5_core->dev; > > > > > + np = dev_of_node(dev); > > > > > + > > > > > + /* we have address cell 2 and size cell as 2 */ > > > > > + ret = of_property_count_elems_of_size(np, "reg", > > > > > + 4 * sizeof(u32)); > > > > > + if (ret <= 0) { > > > > > + ret = -EINVAL; > > > > > + goto fail_tcm; > > > > > + } > > > > > + > > > > > + tcm_bank_count = ret; > > > > > + > > > > > + r5_core->tcm_banks = devm_kcalloc(dev, tcm_bank_count, > > > > > + sizeof(struct mem_bank_data *), > > > > > + GFP_KERNEL); > > > > > + if (!r5_core->tcm_banks) { > > > > > + ret = -ENOMEM; > > > > > + goto fail_tcm; > > > > > + } > > > > > + > > > > > + r5_core->tcm_bank_count = tcm_bank_count; > > > > > + for (j = 0; j < tcm_bank_count; j++) { > > > > > + tcm = kzalloc(sizeof(struct mem_bank_data *), GFP_KERNEL); > > > > > + if (!tcm) { > > > > > + ret = -ENOMEM; > > > > > + goto fail_tcm; > > > > > + } > > > > > + > > > > > + r5_core->tcm_banks[j] = tcm; > > > > > + /* get tcm address without translation */ > > > > > + ret = of_property_read_reg(np, j, &abs_addr, &size); > > > > > + if (ret) { > > > > > + dev_err(dev, "failed to get reg property\n"); > > > > > + goto fail_tcm; > > > > > + } > > > > > + > > > > > + /* > > > > > + * remote processor can address only 32 bits > > > > > + * so convert 64-bits into 32-bits. This will discard > > > > > + * any unwanted upper 32-bits. > > > > > + */ > > > > > + tcm->da = (u32)abs_addr; > > > > > + tcm->size = (u32)size; > > > > > + > > > > > + cpdev = to_platform_device(dev); > > > > > + res = platform_get_resource(cpdev, IORESOURCE_MEM, j); > > > > > + if (!res) { > > > > > + dev_err(dev, "failed to get tcm resource\n"); > > > > > + ret = -EINVAL; > > > > > + goto fail_tcm; > > > > > + } > > > > > + > > > > > + tcm->addr = (u32)res->start; > > > > > + res = devm_request_mem_region(dev, tcm->addr, tcm->size, res->name); > > > > > + if (!res) { > > > > > + dev_err(dev, "failed to request tcm resource\n"); > > > > > + ret = -EINVAL; > > > > > + goto fail_tcm; > > > > > + } > > > > > + > > > > > + memcpy(tcm->bank_name, res->name, ARRAY_SIZE(tcm->bank_name)); > > > > > + np = of_node_get(dev_of_node(dev)); > > > > > + /* > > > > > + * In dt power-domains are described in this order: > > > > > + * <RPU core>, <atcm>, <btcm> > > > > > + * parse power domains for tcm accordingly > > > > > + */ > > > > > + of_parse_phandle_with_args(np, "power-domains", > > > > > + "#power-domain-cells", > > > > > + j + 1, &out_arg); > > > > > + tcm->pm_domain_id = out_arg.args[0]; > > > > > + of_node_put(out_arg.np); > > > > > + > > > > > + dev_dbg(dev, "TCM: %s, dma=0x%x, da=0x%x, size=0x%x\n", > > > > > + tcm->bank_name, tcm->addr, tcm->da, tcm->size); > > > > > + dev_dbg(dev, "tcm pm domain id %d\n", tcm->pm_domain_id); > > > > > + > > > > > + if (cluster->mode == SPLIT_MODE) > > > > > + continue; > > > > > + > > > > > + /* Turn on core-1's TCM as well */ > > > > > + np1 = of_get_next_child(dev_of_node(cluster->dev), > > > > > + r5_core->np); > > > > > + if (!np1) { > > > > > + of_node_put(np1); > > > > > + np1 = NULL; > > > > > + goto fail_tcm; > > > > > + } > > > > > + > > > > > + of_parse_phandle_with_args(np1, "power-domains", > > > > > + "#power-domain-cells", > > > > > + j + 1, &out_arg); > > > > > + tcm->pm_domain_id2 = out_arg.args[0]; > > > > > + of_node_put(out_arg.np); > > > > > + dev_dbg(dev, "tcm pm domain id %d\n", tcm->pm_domain_id2); > > > > > + } > > > > > + } > > > > > + > > > > > + return 0; > > > > > + > > > > > +fail_tcm: > > > > > + while (i >= 0) { > > > > > + r5_core = cluster->r5_cores[i]; > > > > > + for (j = 0; j < r5_core->tcm_bank_count; j++) { > > > > > + if (!r5_core->tcm_banks) > > > > > + continue; > > > > > + tcm = r5_core->tcm_banks[j]; > > > > > + kfree(tcm); > > > > > + } > > > > > + kfree(r5_core->tcm_banks); > > > > > + i--; > > > > > + } > > > > > + > > > > > + return ret; > > > > > +} > > > > > + > > > > > /** > > > > > * zynqmp_r5_get_tcm_node() > > > > > * Ideally this function should parse tcm node and store information > > > > > @@ -895,12 +1035,20 @@ static struct zynqmp_r5_core *zynqmp_r5_add_rproc_core(struct device *cdev) > > > > > */ > > > > > static int zynqmp_r5_get_tcm_node(struct zynqmp_r5_cluster *cluster) > > > > > { > > > > > + const struct mem_bank_data *zynqmp_tcm_banks; > > > > > struct device *dev = cluster->dev; > > > > > struct zynqmp_r5_core *r5_core; > > > > > int tcm_bank_count, tcm_node; > > > > > int i, j; > > > > > > > > > > - tcm_bank_count = ARRAY_SIZE(zynqmp_tcm_banks); > > > > > + if (cluster->mode == SPLIT_MODE) { > > > > > + zynqmp_tcm_banks = zynqmp_tcm_banks_split; > > > > > + tcm_bank_count = ARRAY_SIZE(zynqmp_tcm_banks_split); > > > > > + } else { > > > > > + zynqmp_tcm_banks = zynqmp_tcm_banks_lockstep; > > > > > + tcm_bank_count = ARRAY_SIZE(zynqmp_tcm_banks_lockstep); > > > > > + } > > > > > > > > Why are the changes to get TCM bank information from the DT and enhancement to > > > > support lockstep mode in the same patch? > > > > > > Actually TCM in lockstep mode was supported before as well. It's just I was using same table in lockstep mode before. > > > > > > However, now I am having two tables for split mode and lockstep mode. > > > > > > I had to do this as I have introduced "da" field in "struct mem_bank_data" object. This makes it easy to process > > > > > > "device address" derived from device-tree. > > > > > > And as I have introduced "u32 da", I had to modify table as well and remove hardcoding of "da" calculation in "tcm_mem_map" function. > > > > > > As all of this is connected, I have them in same patch. No new functionality is added, but just code refactoring. > > > > > > > > + > > > > > > > > > > /* count per core tcm banks */ > > > > > tcm_bank_count = tcm_bank_count / cluster->core_count; > > > > > @@ -951,10 +1099,25 @@ static int zynqmp_r5_core_init(struct zynqmp_r5_cluster *cluster, > > > > > enum rpu_tcm_comb tcm_mode) > > > > > { > > > > > struct device *dev = cluster->dev; > > > > > + struct device_node *np; > > > > > struct zynqmp_r5_core *r5_core; > > > > > int ret, i; > > > > > > > > > > - ret = zynqmp_r5_get_tcm_node(cluster); > > > > > + /* > > > > > + * try to get tcm nodes from dt but if fail, use hardcode addresses only > > > > > + * for zynqmp platform. New platforms must use dt bindings for TCM. > > > > > + */ > > > > > + ret = zynqmp_r5_get_tcm_node_from_dt(cluster); > > > > > + if (ret) { > > > > > + np = of_get_compatible_child(dev_of_node(dev), "xlnx,zynqmp-r5f"); > > > > > + if (np) { > > > > > > > > Why was this check added? > > > > > > We want to maintain backward compatibility with previous bindings only for zynqmp platform. > > > > > > > That check has nothing to do with backward compatibility. > > > > > So, hardcode table is used only for "zynqmp" platform if getting "reg" information from device-tree fails. > > > > > > If node is not compatible with "xlnx,zynqmp-r5f" then it is new platform and we must not use hardcode > > > > > > table instead we should fail. > > > > > > > So this is the real reason for the check, but zynqmp-r5f is still the only > > platform supported by this driver. Please remove and re-introduce if/when a new > > platform is added. > > > > > > > > > So far there are too many unanswered questions with this patchset and as such I > > > > will stop here. > > > > > > No problem. Please let me know if you have any further questions. > > > > > > > > > > Mathieu > > > > > > > > > + ret = zynqmp_r5_get_tcm_node(cluster); > > > > > + } else { > > > > > + dev_err(dev, "tcm not found\n"); > > > > > + return -EINVAL; > > > > > + } > > > > > + } > > > > > + > > > > > if (ret < 0) { > > > > > dev_err(dev, "can't get tcm node, err %d\n", ret); > > > > > return ret; > > > > > -- > > > > > 2.25.1 > > > > >
On 9/7/23 1:08 PM, Mathieu Poirier wrote: > On Wed, Sep 06, 2023 at 05:02:40PM -0500, Tanmay Shah wrote: > > HI Mathieu, > > > > Thanks for reviews. Please find my comments below. > > > > I took another look after reading your comment and found more problems... > > > > > On 9/6/23 2:47 PM, Mathieu Poirier wrote: > > > Hi Tanmay, > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 29, 2023 at 11:19:00AM -0700, Tanmay Shah wrote: > > > > Use new dt bindings to get TCM address and size > > > > information. Also make sure that driver stays > > > > compatible with previous device-tree bindings. > > > > So, if TCM information isn't available in device-tree > > > > for zynqmp platform, hard-coded address of TCM will > > > > be used. > > > > > > > > New platforms that are compatible with this > > > > driver must add TCM support in device-tree as per new > > > > bindings. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Tanmay Shah <tanmay.shah@amd.com> > > > > --- > > > > drivers/remoteproc/xlnx_r5_remoteproc.c | 279 +++++++++++++++++++----- > > > > 1 file changed, 221 insertions(+), 58 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/xlnx_r5_remoteproc.c b/drivers/remoteproc/xlnx_r5_remoteproc.c > > > > index feca6de68da2..4eb62eb545c2 100644 > > > > --- a/drivers/remoteproc/xlnx_r5_remoteproc.c > > > > +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/xlnx_r5_remoteproc.c > > > > @@ -39,15 +39,19 @@ enum zynqmp_r5_cluster_mode { > > > > * struct mem_bank_data - Memory Bank description > > > > * > > > > * @addr: Start address of memory bank > > > > + * @da: device address for this tcm bank > > > > * @size: Size of Memory bank > > > > * @pm_domain_id: Power-domains id of memory bank for firmware to turn on/off > > > > + * @pm_domain_id2: second core's corresponding TCM's pm_domain_id > > > > * @bank_name: name of the bank for remoteproc framework > > > > */ > > > > struct mem_bank_data { > > > > - phys_addr_t addr; > > > > - size_t size; > > > > + u32 addr; > > > > + u32 da; > > > > + u32 size; > > > > > > Why are the types of @addr and @size changed? > > > > So, R5 can access 32-bit address range only. Before I had missed this. > > > > In Devce-tree bindings I am keeping address-cells and size-cells as 2. > > > > So, out of 64-bits only 32-bits will be used to get address of TCM. Same for size. > > > > This motivated me to change the type of @addr and @size fields. It doesn't have any side effects. > > It doesn't have an effect but it also doesn't need to be in this patch, > especially since it is not documented. > > > This patch needs to be broken in 3 parts: > > 1) One patch that deals with the addition of the static mem_bank_data for > lockstep mode. > > 2) One patch that deals with the addition of ->pm_domain_id2 and the potential > bug I may have highlighted below. Hi Mathieu, Just heads up. There is change in this plan. I found out that pm domain framework can be used to power-on/off devices with pm domains in device-tree. So, I am developing patches accordingly. I will still split patches but it won't be same as what was posted here. There will be patch that is using pm domain (genpd) framework to power-on/off TCM. Tanmay > 3) One patch that deals with extracting the TCM information from the DT. > Everything else needs to be in another patch. > > > > > > > > > > > > u32 pm_domain_id; > > > > - char *bank_name; > > > > + u32 pm_domain_id2; > > > > + char bank_name[32]; > > > > > > Same > > > > Now we have "reg-names" property in dts so, when that is available, I try to use it. > > > > So, instead of keeping simple pointer, I copy name from "struct resources". So, I changed bank_name > > > > from pointer to array. > > > > I'll look at that part again when the rest of may comments are addressed. > > > > > > > > > > }; > > > > > > > > /** > > > > @@ -75,11 +79,17 @@ struct mbox_info { > > > > * Hardcoded TCM bank values. This will be removed once TCM bindings are > > > > * accepted for system-dt specifications and upstreamed in linux kernel > > > > */ > > > > -static const struct mem_bank_data zynqmp_tcm_banks[] = { > > > > - {0xffe00000UL, 0x10000UL, PD_R5_0_ATCM, "atcm0"}, /* TCM 64KB each */ > > > > - {0xffe20000UL, 0x10000UL, PD_R5_0_BTCM, "btcm0"}, > > > > - {0xffe90000UL, 0x10000UL, PD_R5_1_ATCM, "atcm1"}, > > > > - {0xffeb0000UL, 0x10000UL, PD_R5_1_BTCM, "btcm1"}, > > > > +static const struct mem_bank_data zynqmp_tcm_banks_split[] = { > > > > + {0xffe00000, 0x0, 0x10000, PD_R5_0_ATCM, 0, "atcm0"}, /* TCM 64KB each */ > > > > + {0xffe20000, 0x20000, 0x10000, PD_R5_0_BTCM, 0, "btcm0"}, > > > > > > Here the device address for btcm0 is 0x20000 while in the cover letter it is > > > 0x2000. > > > > Thanks for catching this. This is actually typo in cover-letter. It should be 0x20000 in cover-letter. > > > > > > > > > + {0xffe90000, 0x0, 0x10000, PD_R5_1_ATCM, 0, "atcm1"}, > > > > + {0xffeb0000, 0x20000, 0x10000, PD_R5_1_BTCM, 0, "btcm1"}, > > > > > > Same > > > > Same here: It should be 0x20000 in cover-letter. > > > > > > > > > +}; > > > > + > > > > +/* TCM 128KB each */ > > > > +static const struct mem_bank_data zynqmp_tcm_banks_lockstep[] = { > > > > + {0xffe00000, 0x0, 0x20000, PD_R5_0_ATCM, PD_R5_1_ATCM, "atcm0"}, > > > > + {0xffe20000, 0x20000, 0x20000, PD_R5_0_BTCM, PD_R5_1_BTCM, "btcm0"}, > > > > }; > > > > > > > > /** > > > > @@ -422,6 +432,7 @@ static int zynqmp_r5_mem_region_unmap(struct rproc *rproc, > > > > struct rproc_mem_entry *mem) > > > > { > > > > iounmap((void __iomem *)mem->va); > > > > + > > > > > > Spurious change > > Sure, I will remove it. > > > > > > > return 0; > > > > } > > > > > > > > @@ -526,30 +537,6 @@ static int tcm_mem_map(struct rproc *rproc, > > > > /* clear TCMs */ > > > > memset_io(va, 0, mem->len); > > > > > > > > - /* > > > > - * The R5s expect their TCM banks to be at address 0x0 and 0x2000, > > > > - * while on the Linux side they are at 0xffexxxxx. > > > > - * > > > > - * Zero out the high 12 bits of the address. This will give > > > > - * expected values for TCM Banks 0A and 0B (0x0 and 0x20000). > > > > - */ > > > > - mem->da &= 0x000fffff; > > > > - > > > > - /* > > > > - * TCM Banks 1A and 1B still have to be translated. > > > > - * > > > > - * Below handle these two banks' absolute addresses (0xffe90000 and > > > > - * 0xffeb0000) and convert to the expected relative addresses > > > > - * (0x0 and 0x20000). > > > > - */ > > > > - if (mem->da == 0x90000 || mem->da == 0xB0000) > > > > - mem->da -= 0x90000; > > > > - > > > > - /* if translated TCM bank address is not valid report error */ > > > > - if (mem->da != 0x0 && mem->da != 0x20000) { > > > > - dev_err(&rproc->dev, "invalid TCM address: %x\n", mem->da); > > > > - return -EINVAL; > > > > - } > > > > return 0; > > > > } > > > > > > > > @@ -571,6 +558,7 @@ static int add_tcm_carveout_split_mode(struct rproc *rproc) > > > > u32 pm_domain_id; > > > > size_t bank_size; > > > > char *bank_name; > > > > + u32 da; > > > > > > > > r5_core = rproc->priv; > > > > dev = r5_core->dev; > > > > @@ -586,6 +574,7 @@ static int add_tcm_carveout_split_mode(struct rproc *rproc) > > > > bank_name = r5_core->tcm_banks[i]->bank_name; > > > > bank_size = r5_core->tcm_banks[i]->size; > > > > pm_domain_id = r5_core->tcm_banks[i]->pm_domain_id; > > > > + da = r5_core->tcm_banks[i]->da; > > > > > > > > ret = zynqmp_pm_request_node(pm_domain_id, > > > > ZYNQMP_PM_CAPABILITY_ACCESS, 0, > > > > @@ -599,7 +588,7 @@ static int add_tcm_carveout_split_mode(struct rproc *rproc) > > > > bank_name, bank_addr, bank_size); > > > > > > > > rproc_mem = rproc_mem_entry_init(dev, NULL, bank_addr, > > > > - bank_size, bank_addr, > > > > + bank_size, da, > > > > tcm_mem_map, tcm_mem_unmap, > > > > bank_name); > > > > if (!rproc_mem) { > > > > @@ -632,14 +621,14 @@ static int add_tcm_carveout_split_mode(struct rproc *rproc) > > > > */ > > > > static int add_tcm_carveout_lockstep_mode(struct rproc *rproc) > > > > { > > > > + u32 pm_domain_id, da, pm_domain_id2; > > > > struct rproc_mem_entry *rproc_mem; > > > > struct zynqmp_r5_core *r5_core; > > > > int i, num_banks, ret; > > > > - phys_addr_t bank_addr; > > > > - size_t bank_size = 0; > > > > + u32 bank_size = 0; > > Why is this changed to a u32 when rproc_mem_entry_init() takes a size_t for > @len? This is especially concerning since add_tcm_carveout_split_mode() still > uses a size_t. > > > > > struct device *dev; > > > > - u32 pm_domain_id; > > > > char *bank_name; > > > > + u32 bank_addr; > > > > > > > > r5_core = rproc->priv; > > > > dev = r5_core->dev; > > > > @@ -653,12 +642,16 @@ static int add_tcm_carveout_lockstep_mode(struct rproc *rproc) > > > > * So, Enable each TCM block individually, but add their size > > > > * to create contiguous memory region. > > > > */ > > > > - bank_addr = r5_core->tcm_banks[0]->addr; > > > > - bank_name = r5_core->tcm_banks[0]->bank_name; > > > > - > > > > for (i = 0; i < num_banks; i++) { > > > > - bank_size += r5_core->tcm_banks[i]->size; > > > > + bank_addr = r5_core->tcm_banks[i]->addr; > > > > + bank_name = r5_core->tcm_banks[i]->bank_name; > > > > + bank_size = r5_core->tcm_banks[i]->size; > > > > pm_domain_id = r5_core->tcm_banks[i]->pm_domain_id; > > > > + pm_domain_id2 = r5_core->tcm_banks[i]->pm_domain_id2; > > > > + da = r5_core->tcm_banks[i]->da; > > > > + > > > > + dev_dbg(dev, "TCM %s addr=0x%x, size=0x%x", > > > > + bank_name, bank_addr, bank_size); > > > > > > > > /* Turn on each TCM bank individually */ > > > > ret = zynqmp_pm_request_node(pm_domain_id, > > > > @@ -668,23 +661,28 @@ static int add_tcm_carveout_lockstep_mode(struct rproc *rproc) > > > > dev_err(dev, "failed to turn on TCM 0x%x", pm_domain_id); > > > > goto release_tcm_lockstep; > > > > } > > > > - } > > > > > > > > - dev_dbg(dev, "TCM add carveout lockstep mode %s addr=0x%llx, size=0x%lx", > > > > - bank_name, bank_addr, bank_size); > > > > - > > > > - /* Register TCM address range, TCM map and unmap functions */ > > > > - rproc_mem = rproc_mem_entry_init(dev, NULL, bank_addr, > > > > - bank_size, bank_addr, > > > > - tcm_mem_map, tcm_mem_unmap, > > > > - bank_name); > > > > - if (!rproc_mem) { > > > > - ret = -ENOMEM; > > > > - goto release_tcm_lockstep; > > > > - } > > > > + /* Turn on each TCM bank individually */ > > > > + ret = zynqmp_pm_request_node(pm_domain_id2, > > > > + ZYNQMP_PM_CAPABILITY_ACCESS, 0, > > > > + ZYNQMP_PM_REQUEST_ACK_BLOCKING); > > > > + if (ret < 0) { > > > > + dev_err(dev, "failed to turn on TCM 0x%x", pm_domain_id2); > > > > + goto release_tcm_lockstep; > > > > + } > > > > > > > > - /* If registration is success, add carveouts */ > > > > - rproc_add_carveout(rproc, rproc_mem); > > > > + /* Register TCM address range, TCM map and unmap functions */ > > > > + rproc_mem = rproc_mem_entry_init(dev, NULL, bank_addr, > > > > + bank_size, da, > > > > + tcm_mem_map, tcm_mem_unmap, > > > > + bank_name); > > The original code adds a single carveout while this code is adding one for each > memory bank? Is this done on purpose or is it a bug? No comment is provided. > > > > > + if (!rproc_mem) { > > > > + ret = -ENOMEM; > > > > + goto release_tcm_lockstep; > > > > + } > > > > + > > > > + rproc_add_carveout(rproc, rproc_mem); > > > > + } > > > > > > > > return 0; > > > > > > > > @@ -693,7 +691,12 @@ static int add_tcm_carveout_lockstep_mode(struct rproc *rproc) > > > > for (i--; i >= 0; i--) { > > > > pm_domain_id = r5_core->tcm_banks[i]->pm_domain_id; > > > > zynqmp_pm_release_node(pm_domain_id); > > > > + if (pm_domain_id2) { > > > > + pm_domain_id2 = r5_core->tcm_banks[i]->pm_domain_id2; > > > > + zynqmp_pm_release_node(pm_domain_id2); > > > > + } > > > > } > > > > + > > > > return ret; > > > > } > > > > > > > > @@ -800,17 +803,23 @@ static int zynqmp_r5_rproc_prepare(struct rproc *rproc) > > > > */ > > > > static int zynqmp_r5_rproc_unprepare(struct rproc *rproc) > > > > { > > > > + u32 pm_domain_id, pm_domain_id2; > > > > struct zynqmp_r5_core *r5_core; > > > > - u32 pm_domain_id; > > > > int i; > > > > > > > > r5_core = rproc->priv; > > > > > > > > for (i = 0; i < r5_core->tcm_bank_count; i++) { > > > > pm_domain_id = r5_core->tcm_banks[i]->pm_domain_id; > > > > + pm_domain_id2 = r5_core->tcm_banks[i]->pm_domain_id2; > > > > if (zynqmp_pm_release_node(pm_domain_id)) > > > > dev_warn(r5_core->dev, > > > > "can't turn off TCM bank 0x%x", pm_domain_id); > > > > + if (pm_domain_id2 && zynqmp_pm_release_node(pm_domain_id2)) > > > > + dev_warn(r5_core->dev, > > > > + "can't turn off TCM bank 0x%x", pm_domain_id2); > > > > + dev_dbg(r5_core->dev, "pm_domain_id=%d, pm_domain_id2=%d\n", > > > > + pm_domain_id, pm_domain_id2); > > > > } > > > > > > > > return 0; > > > > @@ -883,6 +892,137 @@ static struct zynqmp_r5_core *zynqmp_r5_add_rproc_core(struct device *cdev) > > > > return ERR_PTR(ret); > > > > } > > > > > > > > +static int zynqmp_r5_get_tcm_node_from_dt(struct zynqmp_r5_cluster *cluster) > > > > +{ > > > > + int i, j, tcm_bank_count, ret = -EINVAL; > > > > + struct zynqmp_r5_core *r5_core; > > > > + struct of_phandle_args out_arg; > > > > + struct platform_device *cpdev; > > > > + struct resource *res = NULL; > > > > + u64 abs_addr = 0, size = 0; > > > > + struct mem_bank_data *tcm; > > > > + struct device_node *np, *np1 = NULL; > > > > + struct device *dev; > > As far as I can tell @ret, @res and @np1 don't need initilisation. It may also > be the case for @abs_addr and @size. > > > > > + > > > > + for (i = 0; i < cluster->core_count; i++) { > > > > + r5_core = cluster->r5_cores[i]; > > > > + dev = r5_core->dev; > > > > + np = dev_of_node(dev); > > > > + > > > > + /* we have address cell 2 and size cell as 2 */ > > > > + ret = of_property_count_elems_of_size(np, "reg", > > > > + 4 * sizeof(u32)); > > > > + if (ret <= 0) { > > > > + ret = -EINVAL; > > > > + goto fail_tcm; > > > > + } > > > > + > > > > + tcm_bank_count = ret; > > > > + > > > > + r5_core->tcm_banks = devm_kcalloc(dev, tcm_bank_count, > > > > + sizeof(struct mem_bank_data *), > > > > + GFP_KERNEL); > > > > + if (!r5_core->tcm_banks) { > > > > + ret = -ENOMEM; > > > > + goto fail_tcm; > > > > + } > > > > + > > > > + r5_core->tcm_bank_count = tcm_bank_count; > > > > + for (j = 0; j < tcm_bank_count; j++) { > > > > + tcm = kzalloc(sizeof(struct mem_bank_data *), GFP_KERNEL); > > > > + if (!tcm) { > > > > + ret = -ENOMEM; > > > > + goto fail_tcm; > > > > + } > > > > + > > > > + r5_core->tcm_banks[j] = tcm; > > > > + /* get tcm address without translation */ > > > > + ret = of_property_read_reg(np, j, &abs_addr, &size); > > > > + if (ret) { > > > > + dev_err(dev, "failed to get reg property\n"); > > > > + goto fail_tcm; > > > > + } > > > > + > > > > + /* > > > > + * remote processor can address only 32 bits > > > > + * so convert 64-bits into 32-bits. This will discard > > > > + * any unwanted upper 32-bits. > > > > + */ > > > > + tcm->da = (u32)abs_addr; > > > > + tcm->size = (u32)size; > > > > + > > > > + cpdev = to_platform_device(dev); > > > > + res = platform_get_resource(cpdev, IORESOURCE_MEM, j); > > > > + if (!res) { > > > > + dev_err(dev, "failed to get tcm resource\n"); > > > > + ret = -EINVAL; > > > > + goto fail_tcm; > > > > + } > > > > + > > > > + tcm->addr = (u32)res->start; > > > > + res = devm_request_mem_region(dev, tcm->addr, tcm->size, res->name); > > > > + if (!res) { > > > > + dev_err(dev, "failed to request tcm resource\n"); > > > > + ret = -EINVAL; > > > > + goto fail_tcm; > > > > + } > > > > + > > > > + memcpy(tcm->bank_name, res->name, ARRAY_SIZE(tcm->bank_name)); > > > > + np = of_node_get(dev_of_node(dev)); > > > > + /* > > > > + * In dt power-domains are described in this order: > > > > + * <RPU core>, <atcm>, <btcm> > > > > + * parse power domains for tcm accordingly > > > > + */ > > > > + of_parse_phandle_with_args(np, "power-domains", > > > > + "#power-domain-cells", > > > > + j + 1, &out_arg); > > > > + tcm->pm_domain_id = out_arg.args[0]; > > > > + of_node_put(out_arg.np); > > > > + > > > > + dev_dbg(dev, "TCM: %s, dma=0x%x, da=0x%x, size=0x%x\n", > > > > + tcm->bank_name, tcm->addr, tcm->da, tcm->size); > > > > + dev_dbg(dev, "tcm pm domain id %d\n", tcm->pm_domain_id); > > > > + > > > > + if (cluster->mode == SPLIT_MODE) > > > > + continue; > > > > + > > > > + /* Turn on core-1's TCM as well */ > > > > + np1 = of_get_next_child(dev_of_node(cluster->dev), > > > > + r5_core->np); > > > > + if (!np1) { > > > > + of_node_put(np1); > > > > + np1 = NULL; > > > > + goto fail_tcm; > > > > + } > > > > + > > > > + of_parse_phandle_with_args(np1, "power-domains", > > > > + "#power-domain-cells", > > > > + j + 1, &out_arg); > > > > + tcm->pm_domain_id2 = out_arg.args[0]; > > > > + of_node_put(out_arg.np); > > > > + dev_dbg(dev, "tcm pm domain id %d\n", tcm->pm_domain_id2); > > > > + } > > > > + } > > > > + > > > > + return 0; > > > > + > > > > +fail_tcm: > > > > + while (i >= 0) { > > > > + r5_core = cluster->r5_cores[i]; > > > > + for (j = 0; j < r5_core->tcm_bank_count; j++) { > > > > + if (!r5_core->tcm_banks) > > > > + continue; > > > > + tcm = r5_core->tcm_banks[j]; > > > > + kfree(tcm); > > > > + } > > > > + kfree(r5_core->tcm_banks); > > > > + i--; > > > > + } > > > > + > > > > + return ret; > > > > +} > > > > + > > > > /** > > > > * zynqmp_r5_get_tcm_node() > > > > * Ideally this function should parse tcm node and store information > > > > @@ -895,12 +1035,20 @@ static struct zynqmp_r5_core *zynqmp_r5_add_rproc_core(struct device *cdev) > > > > */ > > > > static int zynqmp_r5_get_tcm_node(struct zynqmp_r5_cluster *cluster) > > > > { > > > > + const struct mem_bank_data *zynqmp_tcm_banks; > > > > struct device *dev = cluster->dev; > > > > struct zynqmp_r5_core *r5_core; > > > > int tcm_bank_count, tcm_node; > > > > int i, j; > > > > > > > > - tcm_bank_count = ARRAY_SIZE(zynqmp_tcm_banks); > > > > + if (cluster->mode == SPLIT_MODE) { > > > > + zynqmp_tcm_banks = zynqmp_tcm_banks_split; > > > > + tcm_bank_count = ARRAY_SIZE(zynqmp_tcm_banks_split); > > > > + } else { > > > > + zynqmp_tcm_banks = zynqmp_tcm_banks_lockstep; > > > > + tcm_bank_count = ARRAY_SIZE(zynqmp_tcm_banks_lockstep); > > > > + } > > > > > > Why are the changes to get TCM bank information from the DT and enhancement to > > > support lockstep mode in the same patch? > > > > Actually TCM in lockstep mode was supported before as well. It's just I was using same table in lockstep mode before. > > > > However, now I am having two tables for split mode and lockstep mode. > > > > I had to do this as I have introduced "da" field in "struct mem_bank_data" object. This makes it easy to process > > > > "device address" derived from device-tree. > > > > And as I have introduced "u32 da", I had to modify table as well and remove hardcoding of "da" calculation in "tcm_mem_map" function. > > > > As all of this is connected, I have them in same patch. No new functionality is added, but just code refactoring. > > > > > > + > > > > > > > > /* count per core tcm banks */ > > > > tcm_bank_count = tcm_bank_count / cluster->core_count; > > > > @@ -951,10 +1099,25 @@ static int zynqmp_r5_core_init(struct zynqmp_r5_cluster *cluster, > > > > enum rpu_tcm_comb tcm_mode) > > > > { > > > > struct device *dev = cluster->dev; > > > > + struct device_node *np; > > > > struct zynqmp_r5_core *r5_core; > > > > int ret, i; > > > > > > > > - ret = zynqmp_r5_get_tcm_node(cluster); > > > > + /* > > > > + * try to get tcm nodes from dt but if fail, use hardcode addresses only > > > > + * for zynqmp platform. New platforms must use dt bindings for TCM. > > > > + */ > > > > + ret = zynqmp_r5_get_tcm_node_from_dt(cluster); > > > > + if (ret) { > > > > + np = of_get_compatible_child(dev_of_node(dev), "xlnx,zynqmp-r5f"); > > > > + if (np) { > > > > > > Why was this check added? > > > > We want to maintain backward compatibility with previous bindings only for zynqmp platform. > > > > That check has nothing to do with backward compatibility. > > > So, hardcode table is used only for "zynqmp" platform if getting "reg" information from device-tree fails. > > > > If node is not compatible with "xlnx,zynqmp-r5f" then it is new platform and we must not use hardcode > > > > table instead we should fail. > > > > So this is the real reason for the check, but zynqmp-r5f is still the only > platform supported by this driver. Please remove and re-introduce if/when a new > platform is added. > > > > > > So far there are too many unanswered questions with this patchset and as such I > > > will stop here. > > > > No problem. Please let me know if you have any further questions. > > > > > > > Mathieu > > > > > > > + ret = zynqmp_r5_get_tcm_node(cluster); > > > > + } else { > > > > + dev_err(dev, "tcm not found\n"); > > > > + return -EINVAL; > > > > + } > > > > + } > > > > + > > > > if (ret < 0) { > > > > dev_err(dev, "can't get tcm node, err %d\n", ret); > > > > return ret; > > > > -- > > > > 2.25.1 > > > >
diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/xlnx_r5_remoteproc.c b/drivers/remoteproc/xlnx_r5_remoteproc.c index feca6de68da2..4eb62eb545c2 100644 --- a/drivers/remoteproc/xlnx_r5_remoteproc.c +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/xlnx_r5_remoteproc.c @@ -39,15 +39,19 @@ enum zynqmp_r5_cluster_mode { * struct mem_bank_data - Memory Bank description * * @addr: Start address of memory bank + * @da: device address for this tcm bank * @size: Size of Memory bank * @pm_domain_id: Power-domains id of memory bank for firmware to turn on/off + * @pm_domain_id2: second core's corresponding TCM's pm_domain_id * @bank_name: name of the bank for remoteproc framework */ struct mem_bank_data { - phys_addr_t addr; - size_t size; + u32 addr; + u32 da; + u32 size; u32 pm_domain_id; - char *bank_name; + u32 pm_domain_id2; + char bank_name[32]; }; /** @@ -75,11 +79,17 @@ struct mbox_info { * Hardcoded TCM bank values. This will be removed once TCM bindings are * accepted for system-dt specifications and upstreamed in linux kernel */ -static const struct mem_bank_data zynqmp_tcm_banks[] = { - {0xffe00000UL, 0x10000UL, PD_R5_0_ATCM, "atcm0"}, /* TCM 64KB each */ - {0xffe20000UL, 0x10000UL, PD_R5_0_BTCM, "btcm0"}, - {0xffe90000UL, 0x10000UL, PD_R5_1_ATCM, "atcm1"}, - {0xffeb0000UL, 0x10000UL, PD_R5_1_BTCM, "btcm1"}, +static const struct mem_bank_data zynqmp_tcm_banks_split[] = { + {0xffe00000, 0x0, 0x10000, PD_R5_0_ATCM, 0, "atcm0"}, /* TCM 64KB each */ + {0xffe20000, 0x20000, 0x10000, PD_R5_0_BTCM, 0, "btcm0"}, + {0xffe90000, 0x0, 0x10000, PD_R5_1_ATCM, 0, "atcm1"}, + {0xffeb0000, 0x20000, 0x10000, PD_R5_1_BTCM, 0, "btcm1"}, +}; + +/* TCM 128KB each */ +static const struct mem_bank_data zynqmp_tcm_banks_lockstep[] = { + {0xffe00000, 0x0, 0x20000, PD_R5_0_ATCM, PD_R5_1_ATCM, "atcm0"}, + {0xffe20000, 0x20000, 0x20000, PD_R5_0_BTCM, PD_R5_1_BTCM, "btcm0"}, }; /** @@ -422,6 +432,7 @@ static int zynqmp_r5_mem_region_unmap(struct rproc *rproc, struct rproc_mem_entry *mem) { iounmap((void __iomem *)mem->va); + return 0; } @@ -526,30 +537,6 @@ static int tcm_mem_map(struct rproc *rproc, /* clear TCMs */ memset_io(va, 0, mem->len); - /* - * The R5s expect their TCM banks to be at address 0x0 and 0x2000, - * while on the Linux side they are at 0xffexxxxx. - * - * Zero out the high 12 bits of the address. This will give - * expected values for TCM Banks 0A and 0B (0x0 and 0x20000). - */ - mem->da &= 0x000fffff; - - /* - * TCM Banks 1A and 1B still have to be translated. - * - * Below handle these two banks' absolute addresses (0xffe90000 and - * 0xffeb0000) and convert to the expected relative addresses - * (0x0 and 0x20000). - */ - if (mem->da == 0x90000 || mem->da == 0xB0000) - mem->da -= 0x90000; - - /* if translated TCM bank address is not valid report error */ - if (mem->da != 0x0 && mem->da != 0x20000) { - dev_err(&rproc->dev, "invalid TCM address: %x\n", mem->da); - return -EINVAL; - } return 0; } @@ -571,6 +558,7 @@ static int add_tcm_carveout_split_mode(struct rproc *rproc) u32 pm_domain_id; size_t bank_size; char *bank_name; + u32 da; r5_core = rproc->priv; dev = r5_core->dev; @@ -586,6 +574,7 @@ static int add_tcm_carveout_split_mode(struct rproc *rproc) bank_name = r5_core->tcm_banks[i]->bank_name; bank_size = r5_core->tcm_banks[i]->size; pm_domain_id = r5_core->tcm_banks[i]->pm_domain_id; + da = r5_core->tcm_banks[i]->da; ret = zynqmp_pm_request_node(pm_domain_id, ZYNQMP_PM_CAPABILITY_ACCESS, 0, @@ -599,7 +588,7 @@ static int add_tcm_carveout_split_mode(struct rproc *rproc) bank_name, bank_addr, bank_size); rproc_mem = rproc_mem_entry_init(dev, NULL, bank_addr, - bank_size, bank_addr, + bank_size, da, tcm_mem_map, tcm_mem_unmap, bank_name); if (!rproc_mem) { @@ -632,14 +621,14 @@ static int add_tcm_carveout_split_mode(struct rproc *rproc) */ static int add_tcm_carveout_lockstep_mode(struct rproc *rproc) { + u32 pm_domain_id, da, pm_domain_id2; struct rproc_mem_entry *rproc_mem; struct zynqmp_r5_core *r5_core; int i, num_banks, ret; - phys_addr_t bank_addr; - size_t bank_size = 0; + u32 bank_size = 0; struct device *dev; - u32 pm_domain_id; char *bank_name; + u32 bank_addr; r5_core = rproc->priv; dev = r5_core->dev; @@ -653,12 +642,16 @@ static int add_tcm_carveout_lockstep_mode(struct rproc *rproc) * So, Enable each TCM block individually, but add their size * to create contiguous memory region. */ - bank_addr = r5_core->tcm_banks[0]->addr; - bank_name = r5_core->tcm_banks[0]->bank_name; - for (i = 0; i < num_banks; i++) { - bank_size += r5_core->tcm_banks[i]->size; + bank_addr = r5_core->tcm_banks[i]->addr; + bank_name = r5_core->tcm_banks[i]->bank_name; + bank_size = r5_core->tcm_banks[i]->size; pm_domain_id = r5_core->tcm_banks[i]->pm_domain_id; + pm_domain_id2 = r5_core->tcm_banks[i]->pm_domain_id2; + da = r5_core->tcm_banks[i]->da; + + dev_dbg(dev, "TCM %s addr=0x%x, size=0x%x", + bank_name, bank_addr, bank_size); /* Turn on each TCM bank individually */ ret = zynqmp_pm_request_node(pm_domain_id, @@ -668,23 +661,28 @@ static int add_tcm_carveout_lockstep_mode(struct rproc *rproc) dev_err(dev, "failed to turn on TCM 0x%x", pm_domain_id); goto release_tcm_lockstep; } - } - dev_dbg(dev, "TCM add carveout lockstep mode %s addr=0x%llx, size=0x%lx", - bank_name, bank_addr, bank_size); - - /* Register TCM address range, TCM map and unmap functions */ - rproc_mem = rproc_mem_entry_init(dev, NULL, bank_addr, - bank_size, bank_addr, - tcm_mem_map, tcm_mem_unmap, - bank_name); - if (!rproc_mem) { - ret = -ENOMEM; - goto release_tcm_lockstep; - } + /* Turn on each TCM bank individually */ + ret = zynqmp_pm_request_node(pm_domain_id2, + ZYNQMP_PM_CAPABILITY_ACCESS, 0, + ZYNQMP_PM_REQUEST_ACK_BLOCKING); + if (ret < 0) { + dev_err(dev, "failed to turn on TCM 0x%x", pm_domain_id2); + goto release_tcm_lockstep; + } - /* If registration is success, add carveouts */ - rproc_add_carveout(rproc, rproc_mem); + /* Register TCM address range, TCM map and unmap functions */ + rproc_mem = rproc_mem_entry_init(dev, NULL, bank_addr, + bank_size, da, + tcm_mem_map, tcm_mem_unmap, + bank_name); + if (!rproc_mem) { + ret = -ENOMEM; + goto release_tcm_lockstep; + } + + rproc_add_carveout(rproc, rproc_mem); + } return 0; @@ -693,7 +691,12 @@ static int add_tcm_carveout_lockstep_mode(struct rproc *rproc) for (i--; i >= 0; i--) { pm_domain_id = r5_core->tcm_banks[i]->pm_domain_id; zynqmp_pm_release_node(pm_domain_id); + if (pm_domain_id2) { + pm_domain_id2 = r5_core->tcm_banks[i]->pm_domain_id2; + zynqmp_pm_release_node(pm_domain_id2); + } } + return ret; } @@ -800,17 +803,23 @@ static int zynqmp_r5_rproc_prepare(struct rproc *rproc) */ static int zynqmp_r5_rproc_unprepare(struct rproc *rproc) { + u32 pm_domain_id, pm_domain_id2; struct zynqmp_r5_core *r5_core; - u32 pm_domain_id; int i; r5_core = rproc->priv; for (i = 0; i < r5_core->tcm_bank_count; i++) { pm_domain_id = r5_core->tcm_banks[i]->pm_domain_id; + pm_domain_id2 = r5_core->tcm_banks[i]->pm_domain_id2; if (zynqmp_pm_release_node(pm_domain_id)) dev_warn(r5_core->dev, "can't turn off TCM bank 0x%x", pm_domain_id); + if (pm_domain_id2 && zynqmp_pm_release_node(pm_domain_id2)) + dev_warn(r5_core->dev, + "can't turn off TCM bank 0x%x", pm_domain_id2); + dev_dbg(r5_core->dev, "pm_domain_id=%d, pm_domain_id2=%d\n", + pm_domain_id, pm_domain_id2); } return 0; @@ -883,6 +892,137 @@ static struct zynqmp_r5_core *zynqmp_r5_add_rproc_core(struct device *cdev) return ERR_PTR(ret); } +static int zynqmp_r5_get_tcm_node_from_dt(struct zynqmp_r5_cluster *cluster) +{ + int i, j, tcm_bank_count, ret = -EINVAL; + struct zynqmp_r5_core *r5_core; + struct of_phandle_args out_arg; + struct platform_device *cpdev; + struct resource *res = NULL; + u64 abs_addr = 0, size = 0; + struct mem_bank_data *tcm; + struct device_node *np, *np1 = NULL; + struct device *dev; + + for (i = 0; i < cluster->core_count; i++) { + r5_core = cluster->r5_cores[i]; + dev = r5_core->dev; + np = dev_of_node(dev); + + /* we have address cell 2 and size cell as 2 */ + ret = of_property_count_elems_of_size(np, "reg", + 4 * sizeof(u32)); + if (ret <= 0) { + ret = -EINVAL; + goto fail_tcm; + } + + tcm_bank_count = ret; + + r5_core->tcm_banks = devm_kcalloc(dev, tcm_bank_count, + sizeof(struct mem_bank_data *), + GFP_KERNEL); + if (!r5_core->tcm_banks) { + ret = -ENOMEM; + goto fail_tcm; + } + + r5_core->tcm_bank_count = tcm_bank_count; + for (j = 0; j < tcm_bank_count; j++) { + tcm = kzalloc(sizeof(struct mem_bank_data *), GFP_KERNEL); + if (!tcm) { + ret = -ENOMEM; + goto fail_tcm; + } + + r5_core->tcm_banks[j] = tcm; + /* get tcm address without translation */ + ret = of_property_read_reg(np, j, &abs_addr, &size); + if (ret) { + dev_err(dev, "failed to get reg property\n"); + goto fail_tcm; + } + + /* + * remote processor can address only 32 bits + * so convert 64-bits into 32-bits. This will discard + * any unwanted upper 32-bits. + */ + tcm->da = (u32)abs_addr; + tcm->size = (u32)size; + + cpdev = to_platform_device(dev); + res = platform_get_resource(cpdev, IORESOURCE_MEM, j); + if (!res) { + dev_err(dev, "failed to get tcm resource\n"); + ret = -EINVAL; + goto fail_tcm; + } + + tcm->addr = (u32)res->start; + res = devm_request_mem_region(dev, tcm->addr, tcm->size, res->name); + if (!res) { + dev_err(dev, "failed to request tcm resource\n"); + ret = -EINVAL; + goto fail_tcm; + } + + memcpy(tcm->bank_name, res->name, ARRAY_SIZE(tcm->bank_name)); + np = of_node_get(dev_of_node(dev)); + /* + * In dt power-domains are described in this order: + * <RPU core>, <atcm>, <btcm> + * parse power domains for tcm accordingly + */ + of_parse_phandle_with_args(np, "power-domains", + "#power-domain-cells", + j + 1, &out_arg); + tcm->pm_domain_id = out_arg.args[0]; + of_node_put(out_arg.np); + + dev_dbg(dev, "TCM: %s, dma=0x%x, da=0x%x, size=0x%x\n", + tcm->bank_name, tcm->addr, tcm->da, tcm->size); + dev_dbg(dev, "tcm pm domain id %d\n", tcm->pm_domain_id); + + if (cluster->mode == SPLIT_MODE) + continue; + + /* Turn on core-1's TCM as well */ + np1 = of_get_next_child(dev_of_node(cluster->dev), + r5_core->np); + if (!np1) { + of_node_put(np1); + np1 = NULL; + goto fail_tcm; + } + + of_parse_phandle_with_args(np1, "power-domains", + "#power-domain-cells", + j + 1, &out_arg); + tcm->pm_domain_id2 = out_arg.args[0]; + of_node_put(out_arg.np); + dev_dbg(dev, "tcm pm domain id %d\n", tcm->pm_domain_id2); + } + } + + return 0; + +fail_tcm: + while (i >= 0) { + r5_core = cluster->r5_cores[i]; + for (j = 0; j < r5_core->tcm_bank_count; j++) { + if (!r5_core->tcm_banks) + continue; + tcm = r5_core->tcm_banks[j]; + kfree(tcm); + } + kfree(r5_core->tcm_banks); + i--; + } + + return ret; +} + /** * zynqmp_r5_get_tcm_node() * Ideally this function should parse tcm node and store information @@ -895,12 +1035,20 @@ static struct zynqmp_r5_core *zynqmp_r5_add_rproc_core(struct device *cdev) */ static int zynqmp_r5_get_tcm_node(struct zynqmp_r5_cluster *cluster) { + const struct mem_bank_data *zynqmp_tcm_banks; struct device *dev = cluster->dev; struct zynqmp_r5_core *r5_core; int tcm_bank_count, tcm_node; int i, j; - tcm_bank_count = ARRAY_SIZE(zynqmp_tcm_banks); + if (cluster->mode == SPLIT_MODE) { + zynqmp_tcm_banks = zynqmp_tcm_banks_split; + tcm_bank_count = ARRAY_SIZE(zynqmp_tcm_banks_split); + } else { + zynqmp_tcm_banks = zynqmp_tcm_banks_lockstep; + tcm_bank_count = ARRAY_SIZE(zynqmp_tcm_banks_lockstep); + } + /* count per core tcm banks */ tcm_bank_count = tcm_bank_count / cluster->core_count; @@ -951,10 +1099,25 @@ static int zynqmp_r5_core_init(struct zynqmp_r5_cluster *cluster, enum rpu_tcm_comb tcm_mode) { struct device *dev = cluster->dev; + struct device_node *np; struct zynqmp_r5_core *r5_core; int ret, i; - ret = zynqmp_r5_get_tcm_node(cluster); + /* + * try to get tcm nodes from dt but if fail, use hardcode addresses only + * for zynqmp platform. New platforms must use dt bindings for TCM. + */ + ret = zynqmp_r5_get_tcm_node_from_dt(cluster); + if (ret) { + np = of_get_compatible_child(dev_of_node(dev), "xlnx,zynqmp-r5f"); + if (np) { + ret = zynqmp_r5_get_tcm_node(cluster); + } else { + dev_err(dev, "tcm not found\n"); + return -EINVAL; + } + } + if (ret < 0) { dev_err(dev, "can't get tcm node, err %d\n", ret); return ret;
Use new dt bindings to get TCM address and size information. Also make sure that driver stays compatible with previous device-tree bindings. So, if TCM information isn't available in device-tree for zynqmp platform, hard-coded address of TCM will be used. New platforms that are compatible with this driver must add TCM support in device-tree as per new bindings. Signed-off-by: Tanmay Shah <tanmay.shah@amd.com> --- drivers/remoteproc/xlnx_r5_remoteproc.c | 279 +++++++++++++++++++----- 1 file changed, 221 insertions(+), 58 deletions(-)