On 21/12/2022 08:42, Devarsh Thakkar wrote: > Hi Krzysztof, > > Thanks for the review. Please find my response inline. > > On 30/11/22 20:33, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >> On 30/11/2022 14:40, Devarsh Thakkar wrote: >>> AM62 family of devices don't have a R5F cluster, instead >>> they have single core DM R5F. >>> Add new compatible string ti,am62-r5fss to support this scenario. >>> >>> When this new compatible is used don't allow cluster-mode >>> property usage in device-tree as this implies that there >>> is no R5F cluster available and only single R5F core >>> is present. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Devarsh Thakkar <devarsht@xxxxxx> >>> --- >>> V2: Avoid acronyms, use "Device Manager" instead of "DM" >> >> Use subject prefixes matching the subsystem (git log --oneline -- ...). > Agreed, I will update the prefix as dt-bindings: remoteproc: k3-r5f: in V3. >> >>> --- >>> .../bindings/remoteproc/ti,k3-r5f-rproc.yaml | 48 +++++++++++++------ >>> 1 file changed, 34 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/remoteproc/ti,k3-r5f-rproc.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/remoteproc/ti,k3-r5f-rproc.yaml >>> index fb9605f0655b..91357635025a 100644 >>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/remoteproc/ti,k3-r5f-rproc.yaml >>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/remoteproc/ti,k3-r5f-rproc.yaml >>> @@ -21,6 +21,9 @@ description: | >>> called "Single-CPU" mode, where only Core0 is used, but with ability to use >>> Core1's TCMs as well. >>> >>> + AM62 SoC family support a single R5F core only which runs Device Manager >>> + firmware and can also be used as a remote processor with IPC communication. >>> + >>> Each Dual-Core R5F sub-system is represented as a single DTS node >>> representing the cluster, with a pair of child DT nodes representing >>> the individual R5F cores. Each node has a number of required or optional >>> @@ -28,6 +31,9 @@ description: | >>> the device management of the remote processor and to communicate with the >>> remote processor. >>> >>> + Since AM62 SoC family only support a single core, there is no cluster-mode >>> + property setting required for it. >>> + >>> properties: >>> $nodename: >>> pattern: "^r5fss(@.*)?" >>> @@ -38,6 +44,7 @@ properties: >>> - ti,j721e-r5fss >>> - ti,j7200-r5fss >>> - ti,am64-r5fss >>> + - ti,am62-r5fss >> >> Some order? Alphabetical, so before am64? Same in other places. > Agreed, I will update in V3 accordingly. >> >> >>> - ti,j721s2-r5fss >>> >>> power-domains: >>> @@ -80,7 +87,8 @@ patternProperties: >>> node representing a TI instantiation of the Arm Cortex R5F core. There >>> are some specific integration differences for the IP like the usage of >>> a Region Address Translator (RAT) for translating the larger SoC bus >>> - addresses into a 32-bit address space for the processor. >>> + addresses into a 32-bit address space for the processor. For AM62x, >>> + should only define one R5F child node as it has only one core available. >>> >>> Each R5F core has an associated 64 KB of Tightly-Coupled Memory (TCM) >>> internal memories split between two banks - TCMA and TCMB (further >>> @@ -104,6 +112,7 @@ patternProperties: >>> - ti,j721e-r5f >>> - ti,j7200-r5f >>> - ti,am64-r5f >>> + - ti,am62-r5f >>> - ti,j721s2-r5f >>> >>> reg: >>> @@ -207,20 +216,31 @@ patternProperties: >>> - firmware-name >>> >>> unevaluatedProperties: false >> >> Blank line. > Agreed, I will remove it in V3. >> >>> +allOf: >>> + - if: >>> + properties: >>> + compatible: >>> + enum: >>> + - ti,am64-r5fss >>> + then: >>> + properties: >>> + ti,cluster-mode: >>> + enum: [0, 2] >>> + >>> + else: >>> + properties: >>> + ti,cluster-mode: >> >> It's not really valid anymore for ti,am62-r5fss, so this cannot be >> simple "else". Instead you need to list all compatibles. > I agree that the else block is not valid for am62x, but my understanding is that since all the blocks under allOf are checked for validity, > I thought to add a separate if block only for am62x to set cluster-mode to false [1], which I believe would negate the effect of above else condition for am62x, > so that we don't have to list all compatibles under separate if blocks. > > Just to verify this, I deliberately set cluster-mode=1 in am62x devicetree and then ran a dtbs-check and got below log : > "linux-next/arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-am625-sk.dtb: r5fss@78000000: ti,cluster-mode: False schema does not allow [[1]]" > > and above warning log goes away when i remove the cluster-mode node in am62x devicetree. > But please do let me know if I am missing something here or there is a better/more proper way to do this. This was three weeks ago, so hundreds of patches ago, I don't remember anymore. Just look at your patch - it is clearly incorrect. You said in the patch that for compatibles other than ti,am64-r5fss cluster mode is BOTH [0, 1] AND false. I gave you the way to fix it. Feel free to fix it other ways if it gives correct result. Best regards, Krzysztof
