Hi Iuliana, > Subject: Re: [PATCH V3 0/6] remoteproc: imx_rproc: support firmware in > DDR > > > On 2/9/2023 8:38 AM, Peng Fan (OSS) wrote: > > From: Peng Fan <peng.fan@xxxxxxx> > > > > V3: > > > > Daniel, Iuliana > > > > Please help review this patchset per Mathieu's comments. > > > > Thanks, > > Peng. > > > > Move patch 3 in v2 to 1st patch in v3 and add Fixes tag Per Daniel > > IMX_RPROC_ANY in patch 3 Per Mathieu > > Update comment and commit log in patch 5, 6. > > > > NXP SDK provides ".interrupts" section, but I am not sure how others > > build the firmware. So I still keep patch 6 as v2, return bootaddr > > if there is no ".interrupts" section. > > > > V2: > > patch 4 is introduced for sparse check warning fix > > > > This pachset is to support i.MX8M and i.MX93 Cortex-M core firmware > > could be in DDR, not just the default TCM. > > > > i.MX8M needs stack/pc value be stored in TCML entry address[0,4], the > > initial value could be got from firmware first section ".interrupts". > > i.MX93 is a bit different, it just needs the address of .interrupts > > section. NXP SDK always has .interrupts section. > > > > So first we need find the .interrupts section from firmware, so patch > > 1 is to reuse the code of find_table to introduce a new API > > rproc_elf_find_shdr to find shdr, the it could reused by i.MX driver. > > > > Patch 2 is introduce devtype for i.MX8M/93 > > > > Although patch 3 is correct the mapping, but this area was never used > > by NXP SW team, we directly use the DDR region, not the alias region. > > Since this patchset is first to support firmware in DDR, mark this > > patch as a fix does not make much sense. > > > > patch 4 and 5 is support i.MX8M/93 firmware in DDR with parsing > > .interrupts section. Detailed information in each patch commit message. > > > > Patches were tested on i.MX8MQ-EVK i.MX8MP-EVK i.MX93-11x11-EVK > > If one can build their firmware as they want, then the .interrupt section can > also be called differently. > I don't think is a good idea to base all your implementation on this > assumption. > > It's clear there's a limitation when linking firmware in DDR, so this should be > well documented so one can compile their firmware and put the needed > section (interrupt as we call it in NXP SDK) always in TCML - independently > where the other section go. Ok, so .interrupt section should be a must in elf file if I understand correctly. I could add a check in V4 that if .interrupt section is not there, driver will report failure. How do you think? Thanks, Peng. > > Regards, > > Iulia >
