Hi Rob,
On 7/16/20 2:43 PM, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
On Thu, 16 Jul 2020, Mathieu Poirier wrote:
Hi Rob,
On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 11:15:53AM -0600, Rob Herring wrote:
On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 09:49:19PM -0500, Suman Anna wrote:
The Texas Instruments K3 family of SoCs have one or more dual-core
Arm Cortex R5F processor subsystems/clusters (R5FSS). The clusters
can be split between multiple voltage domains as well. Add the device
tree bindings document for these R5F subsystem devices. These R5F
processors do not have an MMU, and so require fixed memory carveout
regions matching the firmware image addresses. The nodes require more
than one memory region, with the first memory region used for DMA
allocations at runtime. The remaining memory regions are reserved
and are used for the loading and running of the R5F remote processors.
The R5F processors can also optionally use any internal on-chip SRAM
memories either for executing code or using it as fast-access data.
The added example illustrates the DT nodes for the single R5FSS device
present on K3 AM65x family of SoCs.
Signed-off-by: Suman Anna <s-anna@xxxxxx>
---
v2:
- Renamed "lockstep-mode" property to "ti,cluster-mode"
I don't think that's a move in the right direction given this is at
least partially a standard feature.
As I said before, I'm very hesistant to accept anything here given I
know the desires and activity to define 'system Devicetrees' of which
TI is participating. While maybe an rproc node is sufficient for a
DSP, it seems multiple vendors have R cores and want to define them in
system DT.
Ping on this discussion. TI is participating on the System DT evolution
in general, but we don't have any plans to use DTS on our remote cores.
We have our own auto-generated Chip-Support-Library (CSL) code that gets
used on our firmwares.
Also, most of the properties I defined are rather standard properties. I
have posted a revised v3 [1] after the common ti,sci properties
refactoring. This series is only waiting on the bindings. I am happy to
change any ti, prefixed properties. I had one open question [2] that I
am waiting for a response from you for identifying the R5F Core.
regards
Suman
[1] https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/11679331/
[2] https://patchwork.kernel.org/comment/23273441/
Though the system DT effort has not yet given any thought to what is the
view of one processor or instance to another instance (which is what
this binding is). We'll still need something defined for that, but I'd
expect that to be dependent on what is defined for system DT.
Efforts related to the definition of the system DT are under way, something I
expect to keep going on for some time to come. I agree with the need to use the
system DT to define remote processors and I look forward to the time we can do
so.
I'll take this opportunity to add that I should be able to publicly
present a System Device Tree proposal for this during the next call (the
next one after the call early next week that has already a full agenda.)
That being said we need to find a concensus on how to move forward with patches
that are ready to be merged. What is your opinion on that?
In my opinion we don't have to necessarily wait for System Device Tree
to make progress with those if they look OK.
