Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] Documentation: dt-bindings: k3-r5f-rproc: Add new compatible for AM62 SoC family
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski
Date: Wed Nov 30 2022 - 10:04:09 EST
On 30/11/2022 14:40, Devarsh Thakkar wrote:
> AM62 family of devices don't have a R5F cluster, instead
> they have single core DM R5F.
> Add new compatible string ti,am62-r5fss to support this scenario.
>
> When this new compatible is used don't allow cluster-mode
> property usage in device-tree as this implies that there
> is no R5F cluster available and only single R5F core
> is present.
>
> Signed-off-by: Devarsh Thakkar <devarsht@xxxxxx>
> ---
> V2: Avoid acronyms, use "Device Manager" instead of "DM"
Use subject prefixes matching the subsystem (git log --oneline -- ...).
> ---
> .../bindings/remoteproc/ti,k3-r5f-rproc.yaml | 48 +++++++++++++------
> 1 file changed, 34 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/remoteproc/ti,k3-r5f-rproc.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/remoteproc/ti,k3-r5f-rproc.yaml
> index fb9605f0655b..91357635025a 100644
> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/remoteproc/ti,k3-r5f-rproc.yaml
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/remoteproc/ti,k3-r5f-rproc.yaml
> @@ -21,6 +21,9 @@ description: |
> called "Single-CPU" mode, where only Core0 is used, but with ability to use
> Core1's TCMs as well.
>
> + AM62 SoC family support a single R5F core only which runs Device Manager
> + firmware and can also be used as a remote processor with IPC communication.
> +
> Each Dual-Core R5F sub-system is represented as a single DTS node
> representing the cluster, with a pair of child DT nodes representing
> the individual R5F cores. Each node has a number of required or optional
> @@ -28,6 +31,9 @@ description: |
> the device management of the remote processor and to communicate with the
> remote processor.
>
> + Since AM62 SoC family only support a single core, there is no cluster-mode
> + property setting required for it.
> +
> properties:
> $nodename:
> pattern: "^r5fss(@.*)?"
> @@ -38,6 +44,7 @@ properties:
> - ti,j721e-r5fss
> - ti,j7200-r5fss
> - ti,am64-r5fss
> + - ti,am62-r5fss
Some order? Alphabetical, so before am64? Same in other places.
> - ti,j721s2-r5fss
>
> power-domains:
> @@ -80,7 +87,8 @@ patternProperties:
> node representing a TI instantiation of the Arm Cortex R5F core. There
> are some specific integration differences for the IP like the usage of
> a Region Address Translator (RAT) for translating the larger SoC bus
> - addresses into a 32-bit address space for the processor.
> + addresses into a 32-bit address space for the processor. For AM62x,
> + should only define one R5F child node as it has only one core available.
>
> Each R5F core has an associated 64 KB of Tightly-Coupled Memory (TCM)
> internal memories split between two banks - TCMA and TCMB (further
> @@ -104,6 +112,7 @@ patternProperties:
> - ti,j721e-r5f
> - ti,j7200-r5f
> - ti,am64-r5f
> + - ti,am62-r5f
> - ti,j721s2-r5f
>
> reg:
> @@ -207,20 +216,31 @@ patternProperties:
> - firmware-name
>
> unevaluatedProperties: false
Blank line.
> +allOf:
> + - if:
> + properties:
> + compatible:
> + enum:
> + - ti,am64-r5fss
> + then:
> + properties:
> + ti,cluster-mode:
> + enum: [0, 2]
> +
> + else:
> + properties:
> + ti,cluster-mode:
It's not really valid anymore for ti,am62-r5fss, so this cannot be
simple "else". Instead you need to list all compatibles.
> + enum: [0, 1]
> +
> + - if:
> + properties:
> + compatible:
> + enum:
> + - ti,am62-r5fss
> + then:
> + properties:
> + ti,cluster-mode: false
>
> -if:
> - properties:
> - compatible:
> - enum:
> - - ti,am64-r5fss
> -then:
> - properties:
> - ti,cluster-mode:
> - enum: [0, 2]
> -else:
> - properties:
> - ti,cluster-mode:
> - enum: [0, 1]
>
> required:
> - compatible
Best regards,
Krzysztof