> Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 6/6] remoteproc: imx_rproc: set address
> of .interrupts section as bootaddr
>
> On Fri, Jan 27, 2023 at 05:22:46PM +0800, Peng Fan (OSS) wrote:
> > From: Peng Fan <peng.fan@xxxxxxx>
> >
> > i.MX93 M33 has ROM, it needs the ".interrupts" section address to
> > start
> > M33 firmware. In current design, the Arm Trusted Firmware(ATF) use
> > TCML start address when the 2nd arg is 0 when SMC call. So When the
> > M33 firmware is built with TCML address, it works well.
> >
> > However when M33 firmware is built to run in DDR, we need pass the
> > ".interrupts" address as 2nd arg to ATF to start M33 firmwrae.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Peng Fan <peng.fan@xxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > drivers/remoteproc/imx_rproc.c | 10 +++++++++-
> > 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/imx_rproc.c
> > b/drivers/remoteproc/imx_rproc.c index f5ee0c9bb09d..59cca5ac3045
> > 100644
> > --- a/drivers/remoteproc/imx_rproc.c
> > +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/imx_rproc.c
> > @@ -374,7 +374,8 @@ static int imx_rproc_start(struct rproc *rproc)
> > dcfg->src_start);
> > break;
> > case IMX_RPROC_SMC:
> > - arm_smccc_smc(IMX_SIP_RPROC, IMX_SIP_RPROC_START, 0,
> 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, &res);
> > + arm_smccc_smc(IMX_SIP_RPROC, IMX_SIP_RPROC_START,
> rproc->bootaddr,
> > + 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, &res);
> > ret = res.a0;
> > break;
> > case IMX_RPROC_SCU_API:
> > @@ -664,6 +665,13 @@ static u64 imx_rproc_get_boot_addr(struct rproc
> *rproc, const struct firmware *f
> > */
> > writel(*(u32 *)(elf_data + offset), va);
> > writel(*(u32 *)(elf_data + offset + 4), va + 4);
> > + } else if (priv->dcfg->devtype == IMX_RPROC_IMX93) {
> > + /* i.MX93 Cortex-M33 has ROM, it only needs the section
> address */
> > + shdr = rproc_elf_find_shdr(rproc, fw, ".interrupts");
> > + if (!shdr)
> > + return bootaddr;
>
> This contradicts what you wrote in the cover letter of the patchset about an
> ".interrupts" section always being present.
Yes, from the initial beginning for supporting Cortex-M firmware, the section
is there. I just think whether people build their own firmware, not has
this section, and just put firmware in TCM, there is no need to explicitly set
word 0 and 4 again. This maybe a fake assumption, I could refine this piece
code.
>
> There is enough in this patchset to make me look for a second opinion. As
> such I am CC'ing Iuliana and Daniel. Please respin this, adding both of them
> to the recipient list. I will do another revision only when they have provided
> an RB tag.
They not work on other areas, not same as me. Anyway I could ask them to
help review.
Thanks,
Peng.
>
> Thanks,
> Mathieu
>
> > +
> > + return elf_shdr_get_sh_addr(class, shdr);
> > }
> >
> > return bootaddr;
> > --
> > 2.37.1
> >
