Hello Mathieu,
Thanks for reviews.
All the comments looks good, I will send next revision addressing them all.
On 7/22/24 11:39 AM, Mathieu Poirier wrote:
> Good morning,
>
> On Mon, Jul 15, 2024 at 06:39:54PM -0700, Tanmay Shah wrote:
>> AMD-Xilinx zynqmp platform contains on-chip sram memory (OCM).
>> R5 cores can access OCM and access is faster than DDR memory but slower
>> than TCM memories available. Sram region can have optional multiple
>> power-domains. Platform management firmware is responsible
>> to operate these power-domains.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Tanmay Shah <tanmay.shah@xxxxxxx>
>> ---
>>
>> Changes in v2:
>> - Expand commit message with power-domains related information.
>>
>> drivers/remoteproc/xlnx_r5_remoteproc.c | 131 ++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> 1 file changed, 131 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/xlnx_r5_remoteproc.c b/drivers/remoteproc/xlnx_r5_remoteproc.c
>> index 596f3ffb8935..52ddd42b09e0 100644
>> --- a/drivers/remoteproc/xlnx_r5_remoteproc.c
>> +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/xlnx_r5_remoteproc.c
>> @@ -56,6 +56,17 @@ struct mem_bank_data {
>> char *bank_name;
>> };
>>
>> +/**
>> + * struct zynqmp_sram_bank - sram bank description
>> + *
>> + * @sram_res: sram address region information
>> + * @da: device address of sram
>> + */
>> +struct zynqmp_sram_bank {
>> + struct resource sram_res;
>> + u32 da;
>> +};
>> +
>> /**
>> * struct mbox_info
>> *
>> @@ -120,6 +131,8 @@ static const struct mem_bank_data zynqmp_tcm_banks_lockstep[] = {
>> * struct zynqmp_r5_core
>> *
>> * @rsc_tbl_va: resource table virtual address
>> + * @sram: Array of sram memories assigned to this core
>> + * @num_sram: number of sram for this core
>> * @dev: device of RPU instance
>> * @np: device node of RPU instance
>> * @tcm_bank_count: number TCM banks accessible to this RPU
>> @@ -131,6 +144,8 @@ static const struct mem_bank_data zynqmp_tcm_banks_lockstep[] = {
>> */
>> struct zynqmp_r5_core {
>> void __iomem *rsc_tbl_va;
>> + struct zynqmp_sram_bank **sram;
>
> I suggest making @sram an array rather than an array of pointers - it would
> simplify function zynqmp_r5_get_sram_banks().
>
Ack.
>> + int num_sram;
>> struct device *dev;
>> struct device_node *np;
>> int tcm_bank_count;
>> @@ -494,6 +509,40 @@ static int add_mem_regions_carveout(struct rproc *rproc)
>> return 0;
>> }
>>
>> +static int add_sram_carveouts(struct rproc *rproc)
>> +{
>> + struct zynqmp_r5_core *r5_core = rproc->priv;
>> + struct rproc_mem_entry *rproc_mem;
>> + struct zynqmp_sram_bank *sram;
>> + dma_addr_t dma_addr;
>> + size_t len;
>> + int da, i;
>> +
>> + for (i = 0; i < r5_core->num_sram; i++) {
>> + sram = r5_core->sram[i];
>> +
>> + dma_addr = (dma_addr_t)sram->sram_res.start;
>> + len = resource_size(&sram->sram_res);
>> + da = sram->da;
>> +
>> + /* Register associated reserved memory regions */
>> + rproc_mem = rproc_mem_entry_init(&rproc->dev, NULL,
>> + (dma_addr_t)dma_addr,
>> + len, da,
>> + zynqmp_r5_mem_region_map,
>> + zynqmp_r5_mem_region_unmap,
>> + sram->sram_res.name);
>> +
>> + rproc_add_carveout(rproc, rproc_mem);
>> + rproc_coredump_add_segment(rproc, da, len);
>> +
>> + dev_dbg(&rproc->dev, "sram carveout %s addr=%llx, da=0x%x, size=0x%lx",
>> + sram->sram_res.name, dma_addr, da, len);
>> + }
>> +
>> + return 0;
>> +}
>> +
>> /*
>> * tcm_mem_unmap()
>> * @rproc: single R5 core's corresponding rproc instance
>> @@ -669,6 +718,12 @@ static int zynqmp_r5_rproc_prepare(struct rproc *rproc)
>> return ret;
>> }
>>
>> + ret = add_sram_carveouts(rproc);
>> + if (ret) {
>> + dev_err(&rproc->dev, "failed to get sram carveout %d\n", ret);
>> + return ret;
>> + }
>> +
>> return 0;
>> }
>>
>> @@ -881,6 +936,78 @@ static struct zynqmp_r5_core *zynqmp_r5_add_rproc_core(struct device *cdev)
>> return ERR_PTR(ret);
>> }
>>
>> +static int zynqmp_r5_get_sram_banks(struct zynqmp_r5_core *r5_core)
>> +{
>> + struct zynqmp_sram_bank **sram, *sram_data;
>> + struct device_node *np = r5_core->np;
>> + struct device *dev = r5_core->dev;
>> + struct device_node *sram_np;
>> + int num_sram, i, ret;
>> + u64 abs_addr, size;
>> +
>> + /* "sram" is optional proprty. Do not fail, if unavailable. */
>
> s/proprty/property
Ack.
>
>> + if (!of_find_property(r5_core->np, "sram", NULL))
>> + return 0;
>> +
>> + num_sram = of_property_count_elems_of_size(np, "sram", sizeof(phandle));
>> + if (num_sram <= 0) {
>
> Any reason this is "<" rather than "<=" ?
I will make it < 1.
>
>> + dev_err(dev, "Invalid sram property, ret = %d\n",
>> + num_sram);
>> + return -EINVAL;
>> + }
>> +
>> + sram = devm_kcalloc(dev, num_sram,
>> + sizeof(struct zynqmp_sram_bank *), GFP_KERNEL);
>> + if (!sram)
>> + return -ENOMEM;
>> +
>> + for (i = 0; i < num_sram; i++) {
>> + sram_data = devm_kzalloc(dev, sizeof(struct zynqmp_sram_bank),
>> + GFP_KERNEL);
>> + if (!sram_data)
>> + return -ENOMEM;
>> +
>> + sram_np = of_parse_phandle(np, "sram", i);
>> + if (!sram_np) {
>> + dev_err(dev, "failed to get sram %d phandle\n", i);
>> + return -EINVAL;
>> + }
>> +
>> + if (!of_device_is_available(sram_np)) {
>> + of_node_put(sram_np);
>> + dev_err(dev, "sram device not available\n");
>> + return -EINVAL;
>> + }
>> +
>> + ret = of_address_to_resource(sram_np, 0, &sram_data->sram_res);
>> + of_node_put(sram_np);
>
> Why calling this here when sram_np is used below?
>
Ack.
I wanted to keep of_node_put as close as of_node_get.
But, I think within same function I can move of_node_put after all use of sram_np.
I didn't face any runtime errors though, so I am wondering is it required ?
I will move it anyway as suggested.
>> + if (ret) {
>> + dev_err(dev, "addr to res failed\n");
>> + return ret;
>> + }
>> +
>> + /* Get SRAM device address */
>> + ret = of_property_read_reg(sram_np, i, &abs_addr, &size);
>> + if (ret) {
>> + dev_err(dev, "failed to get reg property\n");
>> + return ret;
>> + }
>> +
>> + sram_data->da = (u32)abs_addr;
>> +
>> + sram[i] = sram_data;
>> +
>> + dev_dbg(dev, "sram %d: name=%s, addr=0x%llx, da=0x%x, size=0x%llx\n",
>> + i, sram[i]->sram_res.name, sram[i]->sram_res.start,
>> + sram[i]->da, resource_size(&sram[i]->sram_res));
>> + }
>> +
>> + r5_core->sram = sram;
>> + r5_core->num_sram = num_sram;
>> +
>> + return 0;
>> +}
>> +
>> static int zynqmp_r5_get_tcm_node_from_dt(struct zynqmp_r5_cluster *cluster)
>> {
>> int i, j, tcm_bank_count, ret, tcm_pd_idx, pd_count;
>> @@ -1095,6 +1222,10 @@ static int zynqmp_r5_core_init(struct zynqmp_r5_cluster *cluster,
>> return ret;
>> }
>> }
>> +
>> + ret = zynqmp_r5_get_sram_banks(r5_core);
>> + if (ret)
>> + return ret;
>> }
>
> Thanks,
> Mathieu
>
>>
>> return 0;
>>
>> base-commit: d87dbfd31796f810ed777aee4919f211b4a6c7fb
>> --
>> 2.25.1
>>
