On 2/13/2023 7:50 PM, Mathieu Poirier wrote:
On Mon, Feb 13, 2023 at 12:15:59PM +0200, Iuliana Prodan wrote:
On 2/12/2023 9:43 AM, Peng Fan wrote:
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?
Peng, I stand by my opinion that the limitation of linking firmware in DDR
should be documented in an Application Note, or maybe there are other
documents where how to use imx_rproc is explained.
The implementation based on the .interrupt section is not robust.
Maybe a user linked his firmware correctly in TCML, but the section is not
called .interrupt so the firmware loading will work.
So, instead of using the section name, you should use the address.
Can you be more specific on the above?
Yes, I was thinking of the same thing you proposed below, to have a
section in TCML.
First, check whether there is a section linked to TCML.
If there is none, check for section name - as you did.
If there is no section called .interrupt, give an error message.
We have two ways of booting, one that puts the firmware image in the TCML and
another in RAM. Based on the processor type, the first 8 bytes of the TCML need
to include the address for the stack and PC value.
I think the first thing to do is have two different firmware images, one for
i.MX8M and another one for i.MX93. That should greatly simplify things.
Yes, definitely, there should be firmware images for each platform.
Second, there should always be a segment that adds the right information to the
TMCL. That segment doesn't need a name, it simply have to be part of the
segments that are copied to memory (any kind of memory) so that function
rproc_elf_load_segments() can do its job.
I totally agree!
That pushes the complexity to the tool that generates the firmware image,
exactly where it should be.
This is how I think we should solve this problem based on the very limited
information provided with this patchset. Please let me know if I missed
something and we'll go from there.
For all the above options please add comments in code, explaining each step.
