RE: [PATCH v14 5/5] remoteproc: Add initial zynqmp R5 remoteproc driver

[Ben Levinsky]

Hi Michael,

Thanks for the comments,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael Auchter <michael.auchter@xxxxxx>
> Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2020 3:11 PM
> To: Ben Levinsky <BLEVINSK@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: punit1.agrawal@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; Stefano Stabellini <stefanos@xxxxxxxxxx>;
> Michal Simek <michals@xxxxxxxxxx>; devicetree@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> mathieu.poirier@xxxxxxxxxx; Ed T. Mooring <emooring@xxxxxxxxxx>; linux-
> remoteproc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Jiaying Liang
> <jliang@xxxxxxxxxx>; robh+dt@xxxxxxxxxx; linux-arm-
> kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Jiaying Liang <jliang@xxxxxxxxxx>; Michal Simek
> <michals@xxxxxxxxxx>; Ed T. Mooring <emooring@xxxxxxxxxx>; Jason Wu
> <j.wu@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v14 5/5] remoteproc: Add initial zynqmp R5 remoteproc
> driver
> 
> Hey Ben,
> 
> Split mode is still not functional in this patch series (as was the case
> with the last few revisions).
> 
> Before sending out the next revision, can you _please_ ensure you're
> testing all supported configurations?
> 
[Ben Levinsky]  I will make sure to update in next revision.
 As per review, I tested on QEMU and hardware firmware loading in split mode on R5 0 split, R5 1 split and R5 lockstep and  was  able to successfully load, start and establish IPC links

That being said, I will update the to reflect the values between the enum for rpu operation mode and the documentation in the binding.

For testing, I can provide a pointer to a publicly available device tree I am using if that helps. If not, can you expand on the testing of supported configurations?

> On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 12:43:41PM -0700, Ben Levinsky wrote:
> > +/**
> > + * RPU core configuration
> > + */
> > +static enum rpu_oper_mode rpu_mode;
> > +
> 
> <.. snip ..>
> 
> > +static int zynqmp_r5_remoteproc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> > +{
> > +	int ret, i = 0;
> > +	u32 lockstep_mode;
> > +	struct device *dev = &pdev->dev;
> > +	struct device_node *nc;
> > +
> > +	ret = of_property_read_u32(dev->of_node,
> > +				   "lockstep-mode",
> > +				   &lockstep_mode);
> > +	if (ret < 0) {
> > +		return ret;
> > +	} else if (lockstep_mode != PM_RPU_MODE_LOCKSTEP &&
> > +	    lockstep_mode != PM_RPU_MODE_SPLIT) {
> > +		dev_err(dev,
> > +			"Invalid lockstep-mode %x in %pOF\n",
> > +			lockstep_mode, dev->of_node);
> > +		return -EINVAL;
> > +	}
> > +
> > +	rpu_mode = lockstep_mode;
> > +
> > +	dev_dbg(dev, "RPU configuration: %s\n",
> > +		lockstep_mode ? "lockstep" : "split");
> 
> The binding documents lockstep-mode as:
> 
> > +  lockstep-mode:
> > +    description:
> > +      R5 core configuration (split is 0 or lock-step and 1)
> > +    maxItems: 1
> 
will update this as you note so that lockstep and split mode are accurately reflected. 

> (Which needs to be reworded, but it looks like the intent was "split is
> 0 and lock-step is 1")
> 
> However, rpu_oper_mode is defined as:
> 
> > +enum rpu_oper_mode {
> > +       PM_RPU_MODE_LOCKSTEP = 0,
> > +       PM_RPU_MODE_SPLIT = 1,
> > +};
> 
> so the assignment "rpu_mode = lockstep_mode" is incorrect.
> 
once the binding is updated, why would this still be incorrect? Assuming the documentation is updated, the above line would be ok, right?

Thank you for the review
Ben

> - Michael