Re: [PATCH 2/2] remoteproc: k3-r5: Extend support to R5F clusters on AM64x SoCs

From: Mathieu Poirier
Date: Thu Mar 25 2021 - 18:18:16 EST

Next message: Sean Christopherson: "Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] KVM: x86/mmu: Don't allow TDP MMU to yield when recovering NX pages"
Previous message: Matthew Wilcox: "Re: [PATCH] kernel-doc: better handle '::' sequences"
In reply to: Suman Anna: "Re: [PATCH 2/2] remoteproc: k3-r5: Extend support to R5F clusters on AM64x SoCs"
Next in thread: Suman Anna: "Re: [PATCH 2/2] remoteproc: k3-r5: Extend support to R5F clusters on AM64x SoCs"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 04:00:55PM -0500, Suman Anna wrote:
> Hi Mathieu,
>
> On 3/25/21 12:30 PM, Mathieu Poirier wrote:
> > Good morning,
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 18, 2021 at 04:58:42PM -0500, Suman Anna wrote:
> >> The K3 AM64x SoC family has a revised R5F sub-system and contains a
> >> subset of the R5F clusters present on J721E SoCs. The K3 AM64x SoCs
> >> only have two dual-core Arm R5F clusters/subsystems with 2 R5F cores
> >> each present within the MAIN voltage domain (MAIN_R5FSS0 & MAIN_R5FSS1).
> >>
> >> The revised IP has the following distinct features:
> >> 1. The R5FSS IP supports a new "Single-CPU" mode instead of the LockStep
> >> mode on existing SoCs (AM65x, J721E or J7200). This mode is similar
> >> to LockStep-mode on J7200 SoCs in terms of TCM usage without the
> >> fault-tolerant safety feature provided by the LockStep mode.
> >>
> >> The Core1 TCMs are combined with the Core0 TCMs effectively doubling
> >> the amount of TCMs available in Single-CPU mode. The LockStep-mode
> >> on previous AM65x and J721E SoCs could only use the Core0 TCMs. These
> >> combined TCMs appear contiguous at the respective Core0 TCM addresses.
> >> The code though is executed only on a single CPU (on Core0), and as
> >> such, requires the halt signal to be programmed only for Core0, while
> >> the resets need to be managed for both the cores.
> >>
> >> 2. TCMs are auto-initialized during module power-up, and the behavior
> >> is programmable through a MMR bit. This feature is the same as on
> >> the recent J7200 SoCs.
> >>
> >> Extend the support to these clusters in the K3 R5F remoteproc driver
> >> using AM64x specific compatibles. New TI-SCI flags and a unique cluster
> >> mode are also needed for the cluster mode detection on these SoCs. The
> >> reset assert and deassert sequence of both the cores in Single-CPU mode
> >> is agnostic of the order, so the same LockStep reset and release sequences
> >> are re-used.
> >>
> >> The integration of these clusters is very much similar to existing SoCs
> >> otherwise.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Suman Anna <s-anna@xxxxxx>
> >> ---
> >> drivers/remoteproc/ti_k3_r5_remoteproc.c | 155 ++++++++++++++++++-----
> >> 1 file changed, 126 insertions(+), 29 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/ti_k3_r5_remoteproc.c b/drivers/remoteproc/ti_k3_r5_remoteproc.c
> >> index 5cf8d030a1f0..497f0d05b887 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/remoteproc/ti_k3_r5_remoteproc.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/ti_k3_r5_remoteproc.c
> >> @@ -40,6 +40,8 @@
> >> #define PROC_BOOT_CFG_FLAG_R5_ATCM_EN 0x00002000
> >> /* Available from J7200 SoCs onwards */
> >> #define PROC_BOOT_CFG_FLAG_R5_MEM_INIT_DIS 0x00004000
> >> +/* Applicable to only AM64x SoCs */
> >> +#define PROC_BOOT_CFG_FLAG_R5_SINGLE_CORE 0x00008000
> >>
> >> /* R5 TI-SCI Processor Control Flags */
> >> #define PROC_BOOT_CTRL_FLAG_R5_CORE_HALT 0x00000001
> >> @@ -49,6 +51,8 @@
> >> #define PROC_BOOT_STATUS_FLAG_R5_WFI 0x00000002
> >> #define PROC_BOOT_STATUS_FLAG_R5_CLK_GATED 0x00000004
> >> #define PROC_BOOT_STATUS_FLAG_R5_LOCKSTEP_PERMITTED 0x00000100
> >> +/* Applicable to only AM64x SoCs */
> >> +#define PROC_BOOT_STATUS_FLAG_R5_SINGLECORE_ONLY 0x00000200
> >>
> >> /**
> >> * struct k3_r5_mem - internal memory structure
> >> @@ -64,19 +68,29 @@ struct k3_r5_mem {
> >> size_t size;
> >> };
> >>
> >> +/*
> >> + * All cluster mode values are not applicable on all SoCs. The following
> >> + * are the modes supported on various SoCs:
> >> + * Split mode : AM65x, J721E, J7200 and AM64x SoCs
> >> + * LockStep mode : AM65x, J721E and J7200 SoCs
> >> + * Single-CPU mode : AM64x SoCs only
> >> + */
> >> enum cluster_mode {
> >> CLUSTER_MODE_SPLIT = 0,
> >> CLUSTER_MODE_LOCKSTEP,
> >> + CLUSTER_MODE_SINGLECPU,
> >> };
> >>
> >> /**
> >> * struct k3_r5_soc_data - match data to handle SoC variations
> >> * @tcm_is_double: flag to denote the larger unified TCMs in certain modes
> >> * @tcm_ecc_autoinit: flag to denote the auto-initialization of TCMs for ECC
> >> + * @single_cpu_mode: flag to denote if SoC/IP supports Single-CPU mode
> >> */
> >> struct k3_r5_soc_data {
> >> bool tcm_is_double;
> >> bool tcm_ecc_autoinit;
> >> + bool single_cpu_mode;
> >> };
> >>
> >> /**
> >> @@ -369,6 +383,13 @@ static inline int k3_r5_core_run(struct k3_r5_core *core)
> >> * applicable cores to allow loading into the TCMs. The .prepare() ops is
> >> * invoked by remoteproc core before any firmware loading, and is followed
> >> * by the .start() ops after loading to actually let the R5 cores run.
> >> + *
> >> + * The Single-CPU mode on applicable SoCs (eg: AM64x) only uses Core0 to
> >> + * execute code, but combines the TCMs from both cores. The resets for both
> >> + * cores need to be released to make this possible, as the TCMs are in general
> >> + * private to each core. Only Core0 needs to be unhalted for running the
> >> + * cluster in this mode. The function uses the same reset logic as LockStep
> >> + * mode for this (though the behavior is agnostic of the reset release order).
> >> */
> >> static int k3_r5_rproc_prepare(struct rproc *rproc)
> >> {
> >> @@ -386,7 +407,9 @@ static int k3_r5_rproc_prepare(struct rproc *rproc)
> >> return ret;
> >> mem_init_dis = !!(cfg & PROC_BOOT_CFG_FLAG_R5_MEM_INIT_DIS);
> >>
> >> - ret = (cluster->mode == CLUSTER_MODE_LOCKSTEP) ?
> >> + /* Re-use LockStep-mode reset logic for Single-CPU mode */
> >> + ret = (cluster->mode == CLUSTER_MODE_LOCKSTEP ||
> >> + cluster->mode == CLUSTER_MODE_SINGLECPU) ?
> >> k3_r5_lockstep_release(cluster) : k3_r5_split_release(core);
> >> if (ret) {
> >> dev_err(dev, "unable to enable cores for TCM loading, ret = %d\n",
> >> @@ -427,6 +450,12 @@ static int k3_r5_rproc_prepare(struct rproc *rproc)
> >> * cores. The cores themselves are only halted in the .stop() ops, and the
> >> * .unprepare() ops is invoked by the remoteproc core after the remoteproc is
> >> * stopped.
> >> + *
> >> + * The Single-CPU mode on applicable SoCs (eg: AM64x) combines the TCMs from
> >> + * both cores. The access is made possible only with releasing the resets for
> >> + * both cores, but with only Core0 unhalted. This function re-uses the same
> >> + * reset assert logic as LockStep mode for this mode (though the behavior is
> >> + * agnostic of the reset assert order).
> >> */
> >> static int k3_r5_rproc_unprepare(struct rproc *rproc)
> >> {
> >> @@ -436,7 +465,9 @@ static int k3_r5_rproc_unprepare(struct rproc *rproc)
> >> struct device *dev = kproc->dev;
> >> int ret;
> >>
> >> - ret = (cluster->mode == CLUSTER_MODE_LOCKSTEP) ?
> >> + /* Re-use LockStep-mode reset logic for Single-CPU mode */
> >> + ret = (cluster->mode == CLUSTER_MODE_LOCKSTEP ||
> >> + cluster->mode == CLUSTER_MODE_SINGLECPU) ?
> >> k3_r5_lockstep_reset(cluster) : k3_r5_split_reset(core);
> >> if (ret)
> >> dev_err(dev, "unable to disable cores, ret = %d\n", ret);
> >> @@ -455,6 +486,10 @@ static int k3_r5_rproc_unprepare(struct rproc *rproc)
> >> * first followed by Core0. The Split-mode requires that Core0 to be maintained
> >> * always in a higher power state that Core1 (implying Core1 needs to be started
> >> * always only after Core0 is started).
> >> + *
> >> + * The Single-CPU mode on applicable SoCs (eg: AM64x) only uses Core0 to execute
> >> + * code, so only Core0 needs to be unhalted. The function uses the same logic
> >> + * flow as Split-mode for this.
> >> */
> >> static int k3_r5_rproc_start(struct rproc *rproc)
> >> {
> >> @@ -539,6 +574,10 @@ static int k3_r5_rproc_start(struct rproc *rproc)
> >> * Core0 to be maintained always in a higher power state that Core1 (implying
> >> * Core1 needs to be stopped first before Core0).
> >> *
> >> + * The Single-CPU mode on applicable SoCs (eg: AM64x) only uses Core0 to execute
> >> + * code, so only Core0 needs to be halted. The function uses the same logic
> >> + * flow as Split-mode for this.
> >> + *
> >> * Note that the R5F halt operation in general is not effective when the R5F
> >> * core is running, but is needed to make sure the core won't run after
> >> * deasserting the reset the subsequent time. The asserting of reset can
> >> @@ -665,7 +704,9 @@ static const struct rproc_ops k3_r5_rproc_ops = {
> >> *
> >> * Each R5FSS has a cluster-level setting for configuring the processor
> >> * subsystem either in a safety/fault-tolerant LockStep mode or a performance
> >> - * oriented Split mode. Each R5F core has a number of settings to either
> >> + * oriented Split mode on most SoCs. A fewer SoCs support a non-safety mode
> >> + * as an alternate for LockStep mode that exercises only a single R5F core
> >> + * called Single-CPU mode. Each R5F core has a number of settings to either
> >> * enable/disable each of the TCMs, control which TCM appears at the R5F core's
> >> * address 0x0. These settings need to be configured before the resets for the
> >> * corresponding core are released. These settings are all protected and managed
> >> @@ -677,11 +718,13 @@ static const struct rproc_ops k3_r5_rproc_ops = {
> >> * the cores are halted before the .prepare() step.
> >> *
> >> * The function is called from k3_r5_cluster_rproc_init() and is invoked either
> >> - * once (in LockStep mode) or twice (in Split mode). Support for LockStep-mode
> >> - * is dictated by an eFUSE register bit, and the config settings retrieved from
> >> - * DT are adjusted accordingly as per the permitted cluster mode. All cluster
> >> - * level settings like Cluster mode and TEINIT (exception handling state
> >> - * dictating ARM or Thumb mode) can only be set and retrieved using Core0.
> >> + * once (in LockStep mode or Single-CPU modes) or twice (in Split mode). Support
> >> + * for LockStep-mode is dictated by an eFUSE register bit, and the config
> >> + * settings retrieved from DT are adjusted accordingly as per the permitted
> >> + * cluster mode. Another eFUSE register bit dictates if the R5F cluster only
> >> + * supports a Single-CPU mode. All cluster level settings like Cluster mode and
> >> + * TEINIT (exception handling state dictating ARM or Thumb mode) can only be set
> >> + * and retrieved using Core0.
> >> *
> >> * The function behavior is different based on the cluster mode. The R5F cores
> >> * are configured independently as per their individual settings in Split mode.
> >> @@ -700,10 +743,16 @@ static int k3_r5_rproc_configure(struct k3_r5_rproc *kproc)
> >> u32 set_cfg = 0, clr_cfg = 0;
> >> u64 boot_vec = 0;
> >> bool lockstep_en;
> >> + bool single_cpu;
> >> int ret;
> >>
> >> core0 = list_first_entry(&cluster->cores, struct k3_r5_core, elem);
> >> - core = (cluster->mode == CLUSTER_MODE_LOCKSTEP) ? core0 : kproc->core;
> >> + if (cluster->mode == CLUSTER_MODE_LOCKSTEP ||
> >> + cluster->mode == CLUSTER_MODE_SINGLECPU) {
> >> + core = core0;
> >> + } else {
> >> + core = kproc->core;
> >> + }
> >>
> >> ret = ti_sci_proc_get_status(core->tsp, &boot_vec, &cfg, &ctrl,
> >> &stat);
> >> @@ -713,23 +762,48 @@ static int k3_r5_rproc_configure(struct k3_r5_rproc *kproc)
> >> dev_dbg(dev, "boot_vector = 0x%llx, cfg = 0x%x ctrl = 0x%x stat = 0x%x\n",
> >> boot_vec, cfg, ctrl, stat);
> >>
> >> + /* check if only Single-CPU mode is supported on applicable SoCs */
> >> + if (cluster->soc_data->single_cpu_mode) {
> >> + single_cpu =
> >> + !!(stat & PROC_BOOT_STATUS_FLAG_R5_SINGLECORE_ONLY);
> >> + if (single_cpu && cluster->mode == CLUSTER_MODE_SPLIT) {
> >> + dev_err(cluster->dev, "split-mode not permitted, force configuring for single-cpu mode\n");
> >> + cluster->mode = CLUSTER_MODE_SINGLECPU;
> >> + }
> >> + goto config;
> >> + }
> >> +
> >> + /* check conventional LockStep vs Split mode configuration */
> >> lockstep_en = !!(stat & PROC_BOOT_STATUS_FLAG_R5_LOCKSTEP_PERMITTED);
> >> if (!lockstep_en && cluster->mode == CLUSTER_MODE_LOCKSTEP) {
> >> dev_err(cluster->dev, "lockstep mode not permitted, force configuring for split-mode\n");
> >> cluster->mode = CLUSTER_MODE_SPLIT;
> >> }
> >>
> >> +config:
> >> /* always enable ARM mode and set boot vector to 0 */
> >> boot_vec = 0x0;
> >> if (core == core0) {
> >> clr_cfg = PROC_BOOT_CFG_FLAG_R5_TEINIT;
> >> - /*
> >> - * LockStep configuration bit is Read-only on Split-mode _only_
> >> - * devices and system firmware will NACK any requests with the
> >> - * bit configured, so program it only on permitted devices
> >> - */
> >> - if (lockstep_en)
> >> - clr_cfg |= PROC_BOOT_CFG_FLAG_R5_LOCKSTEP;
> >> + if (cluster->soc_data->single_cpu_mode) {
> >> + /*
> >> + * Single-CPU configuration bit can only be configured
> >> + * on Core0 and system firmware will NACK any requests
> >> + * with the bit configured, so program it only on
> >> + * permitted cores
> >> + */
> >> + if (cluster->mode == CLUSTER_MODE_SINGLECPU)
> >> + set_cfg = PROC_BOOT_CFG_FLAG_R5_SINGLE_CORE;
> >> + } else {
> >> + /*
> >> + * LockStep configuration bit is Read-only on Split-mode
> >> + * _only_ devices and system firmware will NACK any
> >> + * requests with the bit configured, so program it only
> >> + * on permitted devices
> >> + */
> >> + if (lockstep_en)
> >> + clr_cfg |= PROC_BOOT_CFG_FLAG_R5_LOCKSTEP;
> >> + }
> >> }
> >>
> >> if (core->atcm_enable)
> >> @@ -894,12 +968,12 @@ static void k3_r5_reserved_mem_exit(struct k3_r5_rproc *kproc)
> >> * cores are usable in Split-mode, but only the Core0 TCMs can be used in
> >> * LockStep-mode. The newer revisions of the R5FSS IP maximizes these TCMs by
> >> * leveraging the Core1 TCMs as well in certain modes where they would have
> >> - * otherwise been unusable (Eg: LockStep-mode on J7200 SoCs). This is done by
> >> - * making a Core1 TCM visible immediately after the corresponding Core0 TCM.
> >> - * The SoC memory map uses the larger 64 KB sizes for the Core0 TCMs, and the
> >> - * dts representation reflects this increased size on supported SoCs. The Core0
> >> - * TCM sizes therefore have to be adjusted to only half the original size in
> >> - * Split mode.
> >> + * otherwise been unusable (Eg: LockStep-mode on J7200 SoCs, Single-CPU mode on
> >> + * AM64x SoCs). This is done by making a Core1 TCM visible immediately after the
> >> + * corresponding Core0 TCM. The SoC memory map uses the larger 64 KB sizes for
> >> + * the Core0 TCMs, and the dts representation reflects this increased size on
> >> + * supported SoCs. The Core0 TCM sizes therefore have to be adjusted to only
> >> + * half the original size in Split mode.
> >> */
> >> static void k3_r5_adjust_tcm_sizes(struct k3_r5_rproc *kproc)
> >> {
> >> @@ -909,6 +983,7 @@ static void k3_r5_adjust_tcm_sizes(struct k3_r5_rproc *kproc)
> >> struct k3_r5_core *core0;
> >>
> >> if (cluster->mode == CLUSTER_MODE_LOCKSTEP ||
> >> + cluster->mode == CLUSTER_MODE_SINGLECPU ||
> >> !cluster->soc_data->tcm_is_double)
> >> return;
> >>
> >> @@ -987,8 +1062,9 @@ static int k3_r5_cluster_rproc_init(struct platform_device *pdev)
> >> goto err_add;
> >> }
> >>
> >> - /* create only one rproc in lockstep mode */
> >> - if (cluster->mode == CLUSTER_MODE_LOCKSTEP)
> >> + /* create only one rproc in lockstep mode or single-cpu mode */
> >> + if (cluster->mode == CLUSTER_MODE_LOCKSTEP ||
> >> + cluster->mode == CLUSTER_MODE_SINGLECPU)
> >> break;
> >> }
> >>
> >> @@ -1020,11 +1096,12 @@ static void k3_r5_cluster_rproc_exit(void *data)
> >> struct rproc *rproc;
> >>
> >> /*
> >> - * lockstep mode has only one rproc associated with first core, whereas
> >> - * split-mode has two rprocs associated with each core, and requires
> >> - * that core1 be powered down first
> >> + * lockstep mode and single-cpu modes have only one rproc associated
> >> + * with first core, whereas split-mode has two rprocs associated with
> >> + * each core, and requires that core1 be powered down first
> >> */
> >> - core = (cluster->mode == CLUSTER_MODE_LOCKSTEP) ?
> >> + core = (cluster->mode == CLUSTER_MODE_LOCKSTEP ||
> >> + cluster->mode == CLUSTER_MODE_SINGLECPU) ?
> >> list_first_entry(&cluster->cores, struct k3_r5_core, elem) :
> >> list_last_entry(&cluster->cores, struct k3_r5_core, elem);
> >>
> >> @@ -1396,7 +1473,12 @@ static int k3_r5_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> >> return -ENOMEM;
> >>
> >> cluster->dev = dev;
> >> - cluster->mode = CLUSTER_MODE_LOCKSTEP;
> >> + /*
> >> + * default to most common efuse configurations - Split-mode on AM64x
> >> + * and LockStep-mode on all others
> >> + */
> >> + cluster->mode = data->single_cpu_mode ?
> >> + CLUSTER_MODE_SPLIT : CLUSTER_MODE_LOCKSTEP;
> >
> > I had another look after reading your comment yesterday and I
> > still think this patch is introducing two variables to keep track of a single
> > state.
>
> Hmm, did you miss the usage/logic of this variable in k3_r5_rproc_configure()?

Yes, I have considered that part carefully. Identifying a AM64 could be done
the same way as I suggested in the code snipped by comparing cluster->data with
am64_soc_data. Or simply put that comparison in a function like
is_soc_am64(cluster) and use it in both k3_r5_probe() and
k3_r5_rproc_configure().

> So, if I understood you correctly, you are saying cluster->mode is enough. The
> single_cpu_mode is an SoC/IP feature, but the capability is also dictated by an
> eFuse bit. If The eFuse bit is set, then the cluster won't even support
> Split-mode and would only ever support Single-CPU mode.
>
> The eFuse bits to check between Single-CPU and LockStep capabilities vary with
> our centralized System Firmware, so I still need to know a means of identifying
> the SoC family to determine which flags to check, and override any configured
> cluster mode property. Example, a Split-mode value on AM64x devices with eFuse
> bit set is overridden to Single-CPU mode. We have similar logic on the other
> SoCs with LockStep-mode (eFuse bit dictates whether the devices are Split-mode
> only in those cases). So, I still need a SoC capability. I won't be able to make
> that determination with cluster->mode variable alone.

I understand that we need to identify an SoC capability but I think we already
have all that is required for that, we just need to use it.

>
> >
> > In the above hunk we want to set a default value.
> Correct, based on the SoC families. I could use either of_device_is_compatible()
> or a SoC match data variable.
>
> I suggested
> > of_device_is_compatible() but you could also compare @data with @am64_soc_data.
> > If the values are equal then we have an AM64 platform.
>
> If we want to drop single_cpu_mode, then I actually don't need to introduce
> am64_soc_data either, but that won't allow us to differentiate J7200 vs AM64
> (different mode capabilities). And duplicating the same values for the purpose
> of different pointer values makes it less reader friendly IMHO.
>

We are both using a flag to deal with this problem - what is different is the
flag we are using. You have a variable within am64_soc_data and I am using
am64_soc_data itself. The end result is the same.

To me it would not be a problem to introduce am64_soc_data for the sole purpose
of differentiation... But for you it is and I respect that.

> >
> >
> >> cluster->soc_data = data;
> >> INIT_LIST_HEAD(&cluster->cores);
> >>
> >> @@ -1406,6 +1488,12 @@ static int k3_r5_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> >> ret);
> >> return ret;
> >> }
> >> + /*
> >> + * Translate SoC-specific dts value of 1 or 2 into appropriate
> >> + * driver-specific mode. Valid values are dictated by YAML binding
> >> + */
> >> + if (cluster->mode && data->single_cpu_mode)
> >> + cluster->mode = CLUSTER_MODE_SINGLECPU;
> >
> > And here I don't see why we have to set cluster->mode again. The default was
> > set before calling of_property_read_u32(). To me the above two hunks could be
> > replace with something like:
>
> I have added this hunk only to catch a misconfiguration case if someone had used
> a value of 1 in AM64x dts nodes by mistake and have not validated using the
> binding schema with dtbs_check. I could actually drop this hunk altogether if it
> is expected that people will always add values as per schema. I have already
> added the valid enum values for cluster modes based on compatible in the binding
> patch.
>

Right, I would drop this hunk.

> >
> > u32 mode = UINT_MAX;
> >
> > ret = of_property_read_u32(np, "ti,cluster-mode", &mode);
> > if (ret < 0 && ret != -EINVAL) {
> > dev_err(dev, "invalid format for ti,cluster-mode, ret = %d\n",
> > ret);
> > return ret;
> > }
> >
> > /* No mode specificied in the DT, use default */
> > if (mode == UINT_MAX) {
> > if (cluster->soc_data == &am64_soc_data)
> > cluster->mode = CLUSTER_MODE_SPLIT;
> > else
> > cluster->mode = CLUSTER_MODE_LOCKSTEP;
> >
> > } else {
> > /* A mode was specified in the DT */
> > if (mode > CLUSTER_MODE_SINGLECPU)
> > return -EINVAL;
> >
> > cluster->mode = mode;
> > }
>
> Hmm, this looks lot more lines than the current default assignment line change.
>
> >
> > If that doesn't work then I'm missing something very subtle.
>
> Please see my explanation above. Hopefully, it explains the subtlety :)
>
> Thank you for the review and suggestions.

In the end this patch works. It is also in a platform driver, which adds
more wiggle room for implementation choices. As such I won't press the case
further - we can go with this implementation, minus the extra hunk we agree to
remove.

>
> regards
> Suman
>
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Mathieu
> >
> >>
> >> num_cores = of_get_available_child_count(np);
> >> if (num_cores != 2) {
> >> @@ -1450,17 +1538,26 @@ static int k3_r5_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> >> static const struct k3_r5_soc_data am65_j721e_soc_data = {
> >> .tcm_is_double = false,
> >> .tcm_ecc_autoinit = false,
> >> + .single_cpu_mode = false,
> >> };
> >>
> >> static const struct k3_r5_soc_data j7200_soc_data = {
> >> .tcm_is_double = true,
> >> .tcm_ecc_autoinit = true,
> >> + .single_cpu_mode = false,
> >> +};
> >> +
> >> +static const struct k3_r5_soc_data am64_soc_data = {
> >> + .tcm_is_double = true,
> >> + .tcm_ecc_autoinit = true,
> >> + .single_cpu_mode = true,
> >> };
> >>
> >> static const struct of_device_id k3_r5_of_match[] = {
> >> { .compatible = "ti,am654-r5fss", .data = &am65_j721e_soc_data, },
> >> { .compatible = "ti,j721e-r5fss", .data = &am65_j721e_soc_data, },
> >> { .compatible = "ti,j7200-r5fss", .data = &j7200_soc_data, },
> >> + { .compatible = "ti,am64-r5fss", .data = &am64_soc_data, },
> >> { /* sentinel */ },
> >> };
> >> MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, k3_r5_of_match);
> >> --
> >> 2.30.1
> >>
>

Next message: Sean Christopherson: "Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] KVM: x86/mmu: Don't allow TDP MMU to yield when recovering NX pages"
Previous message: Matthew Wilcox: "Re: [PATCH] kernel-doc: better handle '::' sequences"
In reply to: Suman Anna: "Re: [PATCH 2/2] remoteproc: k3-r5: Extend support to R5F clusters on AM64x SoCs"
Next in thread: Suman Anna: "Re: [PATCH 2/2] remoteproc: k3-r5: Extend support to R5F clusters on AM64x SoCs"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]