Re: [PATCH v4 4/5] dt-bindings: remoteproc: Add documentation for ZynqMP R5 rproc bindings

[Rob Herring]

On Fri, Apr 24, 2020 at 10:36:09AM -0700, Ben Levinsky wrote:
> Add binding for ZynqMP R5 OpenAMP.
> 
> Represent the RPU domain resources in one device node. Each RPU
> processor is a subnode of the top RPU domain node.

This needs to be sorted out as part of the system DT effort that Xilinx 
is working on. I can't see this binding co-existing with it.

> 
> Signed-off-by: Ben Levinsky <ben.levinsky@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Jason Wu <j.wu@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Wendy Liang <jliang@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Michal Simek <michal.simek@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> Changes since v2:
> - update zynqmp_r5 yaml parsing to not raise warnings for extra
>   information in children of R5 node. The warning "node has a unit
>   name, but no reg or ranges property" will still be raised though 
>   as this particular node is needed to describe the
>   '#address-cells' and '#size-cells' information.
> Changes since 3:
> - remove warning '/example-0/rpu@ff9a0000/r5@0:
>   node has a unit name, but no reg or ranges property'
>   by adding reg to r5 node.
> ---
> 
>  .../remoteproc/xilinx,zynqmp-r5-remoteproc.yaml    | 127 +++++++++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 127 insertions(+)
>  create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/remoteproc/xilinx,zynqmp-r5-remoteproc.yaml
> 
> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/remoteproc/xilinx,zynqmp-r5-remoteproc.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/remoteproc/xilinx,zynqmp-r5-remoteproc.yaml
> new file mode 100644
> index 0000000..41520b6
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/remoteproc/xilinx,zynqmp-r5-remoteproc.yaml
> @@ -0,0 +1,127 @@
> +# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0 OR BSD-2-Clause)
> +%YAML 1.2
> +---
> +$id: "http://devicetree.org/schemas/remoteproc/xilinx,zynqmp-r5-remoteproc.yaml#";
> +$schema: "http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml#";
> +
> +title: Xilinx R5 remote processor controller bindings
> +
> +description:
> +  This document defines the binding for the remoteproc component that loads and
> +  boots firmwares on the Xilinx Zynqmp and Versal family chipset.
> +
> +maintainers:
> +  - Ed Mooring <ed.mooring@xxxxxxxxxx>
> +  - Ben Levinsky <ben.levinsky@xxxxxxxxxx>
> +
> +properties:
> +  compatible:
> +    const: "xlnx,zynqmp-r5-remoteproc-1.0"
> +
> +  core_conf:
> +    description:
> +      R5 core configuration (valid string - split or lock-step)
> +    maxItems: 1
> +
> +  interrupts:
> +    description:
> +      Interrupt mapping for remoteproc IPI. It is required if the
> +      user uses the remoteproc driver with the RPMsg kernel driver.
> +    maxItems: 6
> +
> +  memory-region:
> +    maxItems: 4
> +    minItems: 4
> +  pnode-id:
> +    maxItems: 1

What is this?

> +  mboxes:
> +    maxItems: 2
> +  mbox-names:
> +    maxItems: 2
> +
> +  r5@0:
> +    type: object
> +    required:
> +        - '#address-cells'
> +        - '#size-cells'
> +        - pnode-id
> +examples:
> +  - |
> +     reserved-memory {
> +          #address-cells = <1>;
> +          #size-cells = <1>;
> +          ranges;
> +          rpu0vdev0vring0: rpu0vdev0vring0@3ed40000 {
> +               no-map;
> +               reg = <0x3ed40000 0x4000>;
> +          };
> +          rpu0vdev0vring1: rpu0vdev0vring1@3ed44000 {
> +               no-map;
> +               reg = <0x3ed44000 0x4000>;
> +          };
> +          rpu0vdev0buffer: rpu0vdev0buffer@3ed48000 {
> +               no-map;
> +               reg = <0x3ed48000 0x100000>;
> +          };
> +          rproc_0_reserved: rproc@3ed000000 {
> +               no-map;
> +               reg = <0x3ed00000 0x40000>;
> +          };
> +     };
> +     rpu: rpu@ff9a0000 {
> +          compatible = "xlnx,zynqmp-r5-remoteproc-1.0";
> +          #address-cells = <1>;
> +          #size-cells = <1>;
> +          ranges;
> +          core_conf = "split";

If split, then where is the 2nd core?

> +          reg = <0xFF9A0000 0x10000>;
> +          r5_0: r5@0 {

Unit-addresses are based on 'reg' values.

> +               ranges;
> +               #address-cells = <1>;
> +               #size-cells = <1>;
> +               reg = <0xFF9A0100 0x1000>;
> +               memory-region = <&rproc_0_reserved>, <&rpu0vdev0buffer>, <&rpu0vdev0vring0>, <&rpu0vdev0vring1>;
> +               pnode-id = <0x7>;
> +               mboxes = <&ipi_mailbox_rpu0 0>, <&ipi_mailbox_rpu0 1>;
> +               mbox-names = "tx", "rx";
> +               tcm_0_a: tcm_0@0 {
> +                    #address-cells = <1>;
> +                    #size-cells = <1>;
> +                    reg = <0xFFE00000 0x10000>;
> +                    pnode-id = <0xf>;

These nodes probably need some sort of compatible. And don't the TCMs 
have different addresses for R5 vs. the A cores?

> +               };
> +               tcm_0_b: tcm_0@1 {
> +                    #address-cells = <2>;
> +                    #size-cells = <2>;
> +                    reg = <0xFFE20000 0x10000>;
> +                    pnode-id = <0x10>;
> +               };
> +          };
> +     };
> +
> +
> +     zynqmp_ipi1 {
> +          compatible = "xlnx,zynqmp-ipi-mailbox";
> +          interrupt-parent = <&gic>;
> +          interrupts = <0 29 4>;
> +          xlnx,ipi-id = <7>;
> +          #address-cells = <1>;
> +          #size-cells = <1>;
> +          ranges;
> +
> +          /* APU<->RPU0 IPI mailbox controller */
> +          ipi_mailbox_rpu0: mailbox@ff90000 {
> +               reg = <0xff990600 0x20>,
> +                     <0xff990620 0x20>,
> +                     <0xff9900c0 0x20>,
> +                     <0xff9900e0 0x20>;
> +               reg-names = "local_request_region",
> +                        "local_response_region",
> +                        "remote_request_region",
> +                        "remote_response_region";
> +               #mbox-cells = <1>;
> +               xlnx,ipi-id = <1>;
> +          };
> +     };
> +
> +...
> -- 
> 2.7.4
>