On 21/03/2024 16:13, Tanmay Shah wrote: > > > On 3/21/24 2:39 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >> On 20/03/2024 16:14, Tanmay Shah wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 3/20/24 2:40 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>>> On 19/03/2024 15:42, Tanmay Shah wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 3/19/24 12:30 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>>>>> On 19/03/2024 01:51, Tanmay Shah wrote: >>>>>>> Hello Krzysztof, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks for reviews. Please find my comments below. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 3/17/24 1:53 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>>>>>>> On 15/03/2024 22:15, Tanmay Shah wrote: >>>>>>>>> AMD-Xilinx Versal-NET platform is successor of Versal platform. It >>>>>>>>> contains multiple clusters of cortex-R52 real-time processing units. >>>>>>>>> Each cluster contains two cores of cortex-R52 processors. Each cluster >>>>>>>>> can be configured in lockstep mode or split mode. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Each R52 core is assigned 128KB of TCM memory. ATCM memory is 64KB, BTCM >>>>>>>>> and CTCM memoreis are 32KB each. Each TCM memory has its own dedicated >>>>>>>>> power-domain that needs to be requested before using it. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Tanmay Shah <tanmay.shah@xxxxxxx> >>>>>>>>> --- >>>>>>>>> .../remoteproc/xlnx,zynqmp-r5fss.yaml | 220 +++++++++++++++--- >>>>>>>>> 1 file changed, 184 insertions(+), 36 deletions(-) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/remoteproc/xlnx,zynqmp-r5fss.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/remoteproc/xlnx,zynqmp-r5fss.yaml >>>>>>>>> index 711da0272250..55654ee02eef 100644 >>>>>>>>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/remoteproc/xlnx,zynqmp-r5fss.yaml >>>>>>>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/remoteproc/xlnx,zynqmp-r5fss.yaml >>>>>>>>> @@ -18,7 +18,9 @@ description: | >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> properties: >>>>>>>>> compatible: >>>>>>>>> - const: xlnx,zynqmp-r5fss >>>>>>>>> + enum: >>>>>>>>> + - xlnx,zynqmp-r5fss >>>>>>>>> + - xlnx,versal-net-r52fss >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> "#address-cells": >>>>>>>>> const: 2 >>>>>>>>> @@ -64,7 +66,9 @@ patternProperties: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> properties: >>>>>>>>> compatible: >>>>>>>>> - const: xlnx,zynqmp-r5f >>>>>>>>> + enum: >>>>>>>>> + - xlnx,zynqmp-r5f >>>>>>>>> + - xlnx,versal-net-r52f >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> reg: >>>>>>>>> minItems: 1 >>>>>>>>> @@ -135,9 +139,11 @@ required: >>>>>>>>> allOf: >>>>>>>>> - if: >>>>>>>>> properties: >>>>>>>>> - xlnx,cluster-mode: >>>>>>>>> - enum: >>>>>>>>> - - 1 >>>>>>>>> + compatible: >>>>>>>>> + contains: >>>>>>>>> + enum: >>>>>>>>> + - xlnx,versal-net-r52fss >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Why do you touch these lines? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> + >>>>>>>>> then: >>>>>>>>> patternProperties: >>>>>>>>> "^r5f@[0-9a-f]+$": >>>>>>>>> @@ -149,16 +155,14 @@ allOf: >>>>>>>>> items: >>>>>>>>> - description: ATCM internal memory >>>>>>>>> - description: BTCM internal memory >>>>>>>>> - - description: extra ATCM memory in lockstep mode >>>>>>>>> - - description: extra BTCM memory in lockstep mode >>>>>>>>> + - description: CTCM internal memory >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> reg-names: >>>>>>>>> minItems: 1 >>>>>>>>> items: >>>>>>>>> - - const: atcm0 >>>>>>>>> - - const: btcm0 >>>>>>>>> - - const: atcm1 >>>>>>>>> - - const: btcm1 >>>>>>>>> + - const: atcm >>>>>>>>> + - const: btcm >>>>>>>>> + - const: ctcm >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> power-domains: >>>>>>>>> minItems: 2 >>>>>>>>> @@ -166,33 +170,70 @@ allOf: >>>>>>>>> - description: RPU core power domain >>>>>>>>> - description: ATCM power domain >>>>>>>>> - description: BTCM power domain >>>>>>>>> - - description: second ATCM power domain >>>>>>>>> - - description: second BTCM power domain >>>>>>>>> + - description: CTCM power domain >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> else: >>>>>>>>> - patternProperties: >>>>>>>>> - "^r5f@[0-9a-f]+$": >>>>>>>>> - type: object >>>>>>>>> - >>>>>>>>> - properties: >>>>>>>>> - reg: >>>>>>>>> - minItems: 1 >>>>>>>>> - items: >>>>>>>>> - - description: ATCM internal memory >>>>>>>>> - - description: BTCM internal memory >>>>>>>>> - >>>>>>>>> - reg-names: >>>>>>>>> - minItems: 1 >>>>>>>>> - items: >>>>>>>>> - - const: atcm0 >>>>>>>>> - - const: btcm0 >>>>>>>>> - >>>>>>>>> - power-domains: >>>>>>>>> - minItems: 2 >>>>>>>>> - items: >>>>>>>>> - - description: RPU core power domain >>>>>>>>> - - description: ATCM power domain >>>>>>>>> - - description: BTCM power domain >>>>>>>>> + allOf: >>>>>>>>> + - if: >>>>>>>>> + properties: >>>>>>>>> + xlnx,cluster-mode: >>>>>>>>> + enum: >>>>>>>>> + - 1 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Whatever you did here, is not really readable. You have now multiple >>>>>>>> if:then:if:then embedded. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> For ZynqMP platform, TCM can be configured differently in lockstep mode >>>>>>> and split mode. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> For Versal-NET no such configuration is available, but new CTCM memory >>>>>>> is added. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So, I am trying to achieve following representation of TCM for both: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> if: versal-net compatible >>>>>>> then: >>>>>>> ATCM - 64KB >>>>>>> BTCM - 32KB >>>>>>> CTCM - 32KB >>>>>>> >>>>>>> else: (ZynqMP compatible) >>>>>>> if: >>>>>>> xlnx,cluster-mode (lockstep mode) >>>>>>> then: >>>>>>> ATCM0 - 64KB >>>>>>> BTCM0 - 64KB >>>>>>> ATCM1 - 64KB >>>>>>> BTCM1 - 64KB >>>>>>> else: (split mode) >>>>>>> ATCM0 - 64KB >>>>>>> BTCM0 - 64KB >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If bindings are getting complicated, does it make sense to introduce >>>>>>> new file for Versal-NET bindings? Let me know how you would like me >>>>>>> to proceed. >>>>>> >>>>>> All this is broken in your previous patchset, but now we nicely see. >>>>>> >>>>>> No, this does not work like this. You do not have entirely different >>>>>> programming models in one device, don't you? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I don't understand what do you mean? Programming model is same. Only number >>>>> of TCMs are changing based on configuration and platform. I can certainly >>>>> list different compatible for different platforms as requested. But other than >>>>> that not sure what needs to be fixed. >>>> >>>> You cannot have same programming model with different memory mappings. >>>> Anyway, please follow writing bindings rules: all of your different >>>> devices must have dedicated compatible. I really though we talked about >>>> two IPs on same SoC... >>> >>> I agree that Versal compatible should be added, I will do that in next revision. >>> >>> For ZynqMP case, it is two IPs on same SOC. In lockstep mode and split mode, >>> same SOC is configuring TCM differently. >>> >>> How this should be resolved for Versal-NET ? Driver avoids such TCM configuration >>> for Versal-NET. >> >> Binding should describe the hardware, not what driver is doing >> currently, so the question is: does your device have such properties or >> not? Anyway, you need compatible per each variant and each SoC >> implementation. > > Thanks for reviews. > > Okay in that case I believe I should add one more property to current bindings for TCM > configuration. > I am not sure if you understand how IRC works... You sent me message on IRC about this topic and shortly after you quit. So how am I supposed to send reply? IRC does not work like that... > From our discussion I conclude to following next steps: > > 1) I will send Versal and Versal-NET support as part of previous series (v14) so we get > bigger picture in the first place. > > 2) Add separate compatible for versal platform. > Use device compatible string to maintain > backward compatibility and not machine (root node) compatible string. > > 3) Add tcm,mode property in bindings and each device must configure TCM based on that > property only and not based on compatible string. > > 4) Versal-NET will disallow tcm,mode property in bindings as no such configuration is > possible for that platform. I really don't know your SoCs. What about Zynq? You keep using here names all over the place, but I am not Xilinx maintainer. Best regards, Krzysztof
