Re: [PATCH 1/3] Documentation: DT: add Keystone DSP remoteproc binding

[Suman Anna]

Hi Rob,

>>
>> On 05/31/2017 02:12 PM, Rob Herring wrote:
>>> On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 11:53:15AM -0500, Suman Anna wrote:
>>>> Add the device tree bindings document for the Texas Instrument's
>>>> Keystone 2 DSP remoteproc devices.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Suman Anna <s-anna@xxxxxx>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Sam Nelson <sam.nelson@xxxxxx>
>>>> ---
>>>>  .../bindings/remoteproc/ti,keystone-rproc.txt      | 132 +++++++++++++++++++++
>>>>  1 file changed, 132 insertions(+)
>>>>  create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/remoteproc/ti,keystone-rproc.txt
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/remoteproc/ti,keystone-rproc.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/remoteproc/ti,keystone-rproc.txt
>>>> new file mode 100644
>>>> index 000000000000..f1ba88edd00d
>>>> --- /dev/null
>>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/remoteproc/ti,keystone-rproc.txt
>>>> @@ -0,0 +1,132 @@
>>>> +TI Keystone DSP devices
>>>> +=======================
>>>> +
>>>> +Binding status: Unstable - Subject to changes for using multiple memory regions
>>>
>>> I don't really see what would be unstable here. memory-region is easily 
>>> extended to multiple entries.
>>
>> OK will drop this line.
>>
>>>
>>>> +
>>>> +The TI Keystone 2 family of SoCs usually have one or more (upto 8) TI DSP Core
>>>> +sub-systems that are used to offload some of the processor-intensive tasks or
>>>> +algorithms, for achieving various system level goals.
>>>> +
>>>> +These processor sub-systems usually contain additional sub-modules like L1
>>>> +and/or L2 caches/SRAMs, an Interrupt Controller, an external memory controller,
>>>> +a dedicated local power/sleep controller etc. The DSP processor core in
>>>> +Keystone 2 SoCs is usually a TMS320C66x CorePac processor.
>>>> +
>>>> +DSP Device Node:
>>>> +================
>>>> +Each DSP Core sub-system is represented as a single DT node. Each node has a
>>>> +number of required or optional properties that enable the OS running on the
>>>> +host processor (ARM CorePac) to perform the device management of the remote
>>>> +processor and to communicate with the remote processor.
>>>> +
>>>> +Required properties:
>>>> +--------------------
>>>> +The following are the mandatory properties:
>>>> +
>>>> +- compatible:		Should be one of the following,
>>>> +			    "ti,k2hk-dsp" for DSPs on Keystone 2 66AK2H/K SoCs
>>>> +			    "ti,k2l-dsp" for DSPs on Keystone 2 66AK2L SoCs
>>>> +			    "ti,k2e-dsp" for DSPs on Keystone 2 66AK2E SoCs
>>>> +
>>>> +- reg:			Should contain an entry for each value in 'reg-names'.
>>>> +			Each entry should have the memory region's start address
>>>> +			and the size of the region, the representation matching
>>>> +			the parent node's '#address-cells' and '#size-cells' values.
>>>> +
>>>> +- reg-names:		Should contain strings with the following names, each
>>>> +			representing a specific internal memory region, and
>>>> +			should be defined in this order,
>>>> +			     "l2sram", "l1pram", "l1dram"
>>>> +
>>>> +- label:		Should contain a string identifying the DSP instance
>>>> +			within the SoC. Should be the string "dsp" followed by
>>>> +			the instance number. Eg: "dsp0", "dsp1",..."dsp7" etc
>>>
>>> Why does a user need to know or care?
>>
>> This is used to distinguish the exact DSP instance from others since the
>> DT node name is a generic "dsp". One of the uses is to be able to
>> construct a firmware name within the driver using this label.
> 
> firmware-name doesn't work for you?

Has the stance changed w.r.t coding up the firmware-name in DT now? My
understanding was that this has to be coded up in the driver from a
previous related discussion on this [1]. I am more than happy to move
the firmware name into DT for all remoteprocs if that is an accepted
solution now.

> It was obvious that you are using this to number instances. Why do you 
> care which instance is which? For example, I want dsp0 because it has X 
> or runs at XXMHz, etc. If each instance is different (i.e. not a pool of 
> DSPs), then you should describe the difference some way.

Well, I am not exactly using the label to number the instance, it is a
possibility outside of using it to encode the firmware name. The
partitioning is really upto the application/SoC s/w system integration
aspects.  Most of the times, you are not running identical software on
these DSPs or other remote processors. For example, you might have one
DSP running an OpenCL stack, another DSP dedicated for audio
post-processing etc.

That said, I do have a need for numbering the instances. This is needed
usually for constructing a destination address to encode the processor
when using a common Inter-Processor Communication API across all
processors (Linux or otherwise). Pre-DT, I have used the platform device
id for this on Linux behaving as the master processor. For DT, my
preferred solution for that is an alias. If an alias is not acceptable,
then I still have to provide an equivalent functionality through a
driver-specific scheme.

regards
Suman

[1] http://www.spinics.net/lists/devicetree-spec/msg00140.html