On 7/11/23 00:01, Mathieu Poirier wrote:
On Mon, 10 Jul 2023 at 15:53, Marek Vasut <marex@xxxxxxx> wrote:
On 7/10/23 22:00, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
On 10/07/2023 15:46, Marek Vasut wrote:
On 7/10/23 14:52, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
On 10/07/2023 11:18, Marek Vasut wrote:
On 7/10/23 10:12, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
On 08/07/2023 01:24, Marek Vasut wrote:
Document fsl,startup-delay-ms property which indicates how long
the system software should wait until attempting to communicate
with the CM firmware. This gives the CM firmware a bit of time
to boot and get ready for communication.
Signed-off-by: Marek Vasut <marex@xxxxxxx>
Cc: Bjorn Andersson <andersson@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Conor Dooley <conor+dt@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Fabio Estevam <festevam@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: NXP Linux Team <linux-imx@xxxxxxx>
Cc: Peng Fan <peng.fan@xxxxxxx>
Cc: Pengutronix Kernel Team <kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Rob Herring <robh+dt@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Shawn Guo <shawnguo@xxxxxxxxxx>
.../devicetree/bindings/remoteproc/fsl,imx-rproc.yaml | 5 +++++
1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/remoteproc/fsl,imx-rproc.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/remoteproc/fsl,imx-rproc.yaml
index 0c3910f152d1d..c940199ce89df 100644
@@ -76,6 +76,11 @@ properties:
This property is to specify the resource id of the remote processor in SoC
which supports SCFW
+ default: 0
+ CM firmware start up delay.
I don't see particular improvements from v2 and no responses addressing
I wasn't aware of this being submitted before, esp. since I wrote the
binding document from scratch. Which comment is not addressed, the type
ref is not present and the sentence starts with caps, so what is missing ?
That the property looks like a hacky solution to some SW problem. Why
this delay should be different on different boards?
It probably depends more on the CM4 firmware that is being launched. The
ones I tested were fine with 50..500ms delay, but the delay was always
If this is for some official remoteproc FW running on M4
It is not, it is some SDK which can be downloaded from NXP website,
which can then be used to compile the firmware blob. The license is
BSD-3 however, so it is conductive to producing binaries without
matching sources ...
Why can't the SDK be upgraded to provide some kind of hand-shake
mechanism, as suggested when I first reviewed this patchset?
I'd argue because of legacy firmware that is already deployed.
New firmware builds can, old ones probably cannot be fixed.
Do you have a suggestion how such a mechanism should look like?
As far as I can tell, the MX8M SDK stuff looks very similar to the STM32
Cube stuff, so maybe the mechanism is already there ?