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. > > 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. 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? Thanks, Mathieu > > Rob
