On Fri, Apr 24, 2020 at 10:36:09AM -0700, Ben Levinsky wrote: > Add binding for ZynqMP R5 OpenAMP. > > Represent the RPU domain resources in one device node. Each RPU > processor is a subnode of the top RPU domain node. This needs to be sorted out as part of the system DT effort that Xilinx is working on. I can't see this binding co-existing with it. > > Signed-off-by: Ben Levinsky <ben.levinsky@xxxxxxxxxx> > Signed-off-by: Jason Wu <j.wu@xxxxxxxxxx> > Signed-off-by: Wendy Liang <jliang@xxxxxxxxxx> > Signed-off-by: Michal Simek <michal.simek@xxxxxxxxxx> > --- > Changes since v2: > - update zynqmp_r5 yaml parsing to not raise warnings for extra > information in children of R5 node. The warning "node has a unit > name, but no reg or ranges property" will still be raised though > as this particular node is needed to describe the > '#address-cells' and '#size-cells' information. > Changes since 3: > - remove warning '/example-0/rpu@ff9a0000/r5@0: > node has a unit name, but no reg or ranges property' > by adding reg to r5 node. > --- > > .../remoteproc/xilinx,zynqmp-r5-remoteproc.yaml | 127 +++++++++++++++++++++ > 1 file changed, 127 insertions(+) > create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/remoteproc/xilinx,zynqmp-r5-remoteproc.yaml > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/remoteproc/xilinx,zynqmp-r5-remoteproc.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/remoteproc/xilinx,zynqmp-r5-remoteproc.yaml > new file mode 100644 > index 0000000..41520b6 > --- /dev/null > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/remoteproc/xilinx,zynqmp-r5-remoteproc.yaml > @@ -0,0 +1,127 @@ > +# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0 OR BSD-2-Clause) > +%YAML 1.2 > +--- > +$id: "http://devicetree.org/schemas/remoteproc/xilinx,zynqmp-r5-remoteproc.yaml#"; > +$schema: "http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml#"; > + > +title: Xilinx R5 remote processor controller bindings > + > +description: > + This document defines the binding for the remoteproc component that loads and > + boots firmwares on the Xilinx Zynqmp and Versal family chipset. > + > +maintainers: > + - Ed Mooring <ed.mooring@xxxxxxxxxx> > + - Ben Levinsky <ben.levinsky@xxxxxxxxxx> > + > +properties: > + compatible: > + const: "xlnx,zynqmp-r5-remoteproc-1.0" > + > + core_conf: > + description: > + R5 core configuration (valid string - split or lock-step) > + maxItems: 1 > + > + interrupts: > + description: > + Interrupt mapping for remoteproc IPI. It is required if the > + user uses the remoteproc driver with the RPMsg kernel driver. > + maxItems: 6 > + > + memory-region: > + maxItems: 4 > + minItems: 4 > + pnode-id: > + maxItems: 1 What is this? > + mboxes: > + maxItems: 2 > + mbox-names: > + maxItems: 2 > + > + r5@0: > + type: object > + required: > + - '#address-cells' > + - '#size-cells' > + - pnode-id > +examples: > + - | > + reserved-memory { > + #address-cells = <1>; > + #size-cells = <1>; > + ranges; > + rpu0vdev0vring0: rpu0vdev0vring0@3ed40000 { > + no-map; > + reg = <0x3ed40000 0x4000>; > + }; > + rpu0vdev0vring1: rpu0vdev0vring1@3ed44000 { > + no-map; > + reg = <0x3ed44000 0x4000>; > + }; > + rpu0vdev0buffer: rpu0vdev0buffer@3ed48000 { > + no-map; > + reg = <0x3ed48000 0x100000>; > + }; > + rproc_0_reserved: rproc@3ed000000 { > + no-map; > + reg = <0x3ed00000 0x40000>; > + }; > + }; > + rpu: rpu@ff9a0000 { > + compatible = "xlnx,zynqmp-r5-remoteproc-1.0"; > + #address-cells = <1>; > + #size-cells = <1>; > + ranges; > + core_conf = "split"; If split, then where is the 2nd core? > + reg = <0xFF9A0000 0x10000>; > + r5_0: r5@0 { Unit-addresses are based on 'reg' values. > + ranges; > + #address-cells = <1>; > + #size-cells = <1>; > + reg = <0xFF9A0100 0x1000>; > + memory-region = <&rproc_0_reserved>, <&rpu0vdev0buffer>, <&rpu0vdev0vring0>, <&rpu0vdev0vring1>; > + pnode-id = <0x7>; > + mboxes = <&ipi_mailbox_rpu0 0>, <&ipi_mailbox_rpu0 1>; > + mbox-names = "tx", "rx"; > + tcm_0_a: tcm_0@0 { > + #address-cells = <1>; > + #size-cells = <1>; > + reg = <0xFFE00000 0x10000>; > + pnode-id = <0xf>; These nodes probably need some sort of compatible. And don't the TCMs have different addresses for R5 vs. the A cores? > + }; > + tcm_0_b: tcm_0@1 { > + #address-cells = <2>; > + #size-cells = <2>; > + reg = <0xFFE20000 0x10000>; > + pnode-id = <0x10>; > + }; > + }; > + }; > + > + > + zynqmp_ipi1 { > + compatible = "xlnx,zynqmp-ipi-mailbox"; > + interrupt-parent = <&gic>; > + interrupts = <0 29 4>; > + xlnx,ipi-id = <7>; > + #address-cells = <1>; > + #size-cells = <1>; > + ranges; > + > + /* APU<->RPU0 IPI mailbox controller */ > + ipi_mailbox_rpu0: mailbox@ff90000 { > + reg = <0xff990600 0x20>, > + <0xff990620 0x20>, > + <0xff9900c0 0x20>, > + <0xff9900e0 0x20>; > + reg-names = "local_request_region", > + "local_response_region", > + "remote_request_region", > + "remote_response_region"; > + #mbox-cells = <1>; > + xlnx,ipi-id = <1>; > + }; > + }; > + > +... > -- > 2.7.4 >
