Re: [PATCH v7 3/3] remoteproc: k3-r5: Use separate compatible string for TI AM62x SoC family
From: Devarsh Thakkar
Date: Tue Mar 28 2023 - 12:09:07 EST
Hi Roger,
On 28/03/23 13:22, Roger Quadros wrote:
Hi Devarsh,
On 17/03/2023 18:17, Mathieu Poirier wrote:
On Fri, Mar 10, 2023 at 09:55:44PM +0530, Devarsh Thakkar wrote:
AM62 and AM62A SoCs use single core R5F which is a new scenario
different than the one being used with CLUSTER_MODE_SINGLECPU which is
for utilizing a single core from a set of cores available in R5F cluster
present in the SoC.
To support this single core scenario map it with newly defined
CLUSTER_MODE_SINGLECORE and use it when compatible is set to
ti,am62-r5fss.
Also set PROC_BOOT_CFG_FLAG_R5_SINGLE_CORE config for
CLUSTER_MODE_SINGLECORE too as it is required by R5 core when it is
being as general purpose core instead of device manager.
Signed-off-by: Devarsh Thakkar <devarsht@xxxxxx>
---
V2:
- Fix indentation and ordering issues as per review comments
V3:
- Change CLUSTER_MODE_NONE value to -1
V4:
- No change
V5:
- No change (fixing typo in email address)
V6:
- Use CLUSTER_MODE_SINGLECORE for AM62x
- Set PROC_BOOT_CFG_FLAG_R5_SINGLE_CORE for single core.
V7:
- Simplify and rebase on top of base commit "[PATCH v7] remoteproc: k3-r5: Simplify cluster
mode setting"
---
drivers/remoteproc/ti_k3_r5_remoteproc.c | 59 +++++++++++++++++++-----
1 file changed, 48 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/ti_k3_r5_remoteproc.c b/drivers/remoteproc/ti_k3_r5_remoteproc.c
index c2ec0f432921..df32f6bc4325 100644
--- a/drivers/remoteproc/ti_k3_r5_remoteproc.c
+++ b/drivers/remoteproc/ti_k3_r5_remoteproc.c
@@ -71,14 +71,16 @@ struct k3_r5_mem {
/*
* 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
+ * Split mode : AM65x, J721E, J7200 and AM64x SoCs
+ * LockStep mode : AM65x, J721E and J7200 SoCs
+ * Single-CPU mode : AM64x SoCs only
+ * Single-Core mode : AM62x, AM62A SoCs
*/
enum cluster_mode {
CLUSTER_MODE_SPLIT = 0,
CLUSTER_MODE_LOCKSTEP,
CLUSTER_MODE_SINGLECPU,
+ CLUSTER_MODE_SINGLECORE
What is the difference in device driver behaviour between
SINGLECPU and SINGLECORE?
Yeah there is quite a bit of common code flow between the two but the
fundamental difference is that you use CLUSTER_MODE_SINGLECPU when
you have two R5F cores but you want to use only single R5F core albeit
with using TCM of both the cores whereas CLUSTER_MODE_SINGLECORE is
for the scenario where you have single core R5F's only.
Also the bindings for CLUSTER_MODE_SINGLECPU are already upstream so did
not want to break them either :
https://gitlab.com/linux-kernel/linux-next/-/blob/next-20230328/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/remoteproc/ti%2Ck3-r5f-rproc.yaml#L20.
Regards
Devarsh
If there is no difference then you should not introduce
a new enum. >
};
/**
@@ -86,11 +88,13 @@ enum cluster_mode {
* @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
+ * @is_single_core: flag to denote if SoC/IP has only single core R5
*/
struct k3_r5_soc_data {
bool tcm_is_double;
bool tcm_ecc_autoinit;
bool single_cpu_mode;
+ bool is_single_core;
};
/**
@@ -838,7 +842,8 @@ static int k3_r5_rproc_configure(struct k3_r5_rproc *kproc)
core0 = list_first_entry(&cluster->cores, struct k3_r5_core, elem);
if (cluster->mode == CLUSTER_MODE_LOCKSTEP ||
- cluster->mode == CLUSTER_MODE_SINGLECPU) {
+ cluster->mode == CLUSTER_MODE_SINGLECPU ||
+ cluster->mode == CLUSTER_MODE_SINGLECORE) {
core = core0;
} else {
core = kproc->core;
@@ -877,7 +882,8 @@ static int k3_r5_rproc_configure(struct k3_r5_rproc *kproc)
* with the bit configured, so program it only on
* permitted cores
*/
- if (cluster->mode == CLUSTER_MODE_SINGLECPU) {
+ if (cluster->mode == CLUSTER_MODE_SINGLECPU ||
+ cluster->mode == CLUSTER_MODE_SINGLECORE) {
set_cfg = PROC_BOOT_CFG_FLAG_R5_SINGLE_CORE;
} else {
/*
@@ -1069,6 +1075,7 @@ static void k3_r5_adjust_tcm_sizes(struct k3_r5_rproc *kproc)
if (cluster->mode == CLUSTER_MODE_LOCKSTEP ||
cluster->mode == CLUSTER_MODE_SINGLECPU ||
+ cluster->mode == CLUSTER_MODE_SINGLECORE ||
!cluster->soc_data->tcm_is_double)
return;
@@ -1145,6 +1152,8 @@ static int k3_r5_rproc_configure_mode(struct k3_r5_rproc *kproc)
if (cluster->soc_data->single_cpu_mode) {
mode = cfg & PROC_BOOT_CFG_FLAG_R5_SINGLE_CORE ?
CLUSTER_MODE_SINGLECPU : CLUSTER_MODE_SPLIT;
+ } else if (cluster->soc_data->is_single_core) {
+ mode = CLUSTER_MODE_SINGLECORE;
I have commented twice on this before - whether it is soc_data->single_cpu_mode or
soc_data->is_single_core, I don't want to see them used elsewhere than in a
single function. Either in probe() or another function, use them once to set
cluster->mode and never again.
I will silently drop any other patchset that doesn't address this.
} else {
mode = cfg & PROC_BOOT_CFG_FLAG_R5_LOCKSTEP ?
CLUSTER_MODE_LOCKSTEP : CLUSTER_MODE_SPLIT;
@@ -1264,9 +1273,12 @@ static int k3_r5_cluster_rproc_init(struct platform_device *pdev)
goto err_add;
}
- /* create only one rproc in lockstep mode or single-cpu mode */
+ /* create only one rproc in lockstep, single-cpu or
+ * single core mode
+ */
if (cluster->mode == CLUSTER_MODE_LOCKSTEP ||
- cluster->mode == CLUSTER_MODE_SINGLECPU)
+ cluster->mode == CLUSTER_MODE_SINGLECPU ||
+ cluster->mode == CLUSTER_MODE_SINGLECORE)
break;
}
@@ -1709,19 +1721,33 @@ static int k3_r5_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
/*
* default to most common efuse configurations - Split-mode on AM64x
* and LockStep-mode on all others
+ * default to most common efuse configurations -
+ * Split-mode on AM64x
+ * Single core on AM62x
+ * LockStep-mode on all others
*/
- cluster->mode = data->single_cpu_mode ?
+ if (!data->is_single_core)
+ cluster->mode = data->single_cpu_mode ?
CLUSTER_MODE_SPLIT : CLUSTER_MODE_LOCKSTEP;
+ else
+ cluster->mode = CLUSTER_MODE_SINGLECORE;
}
- if (cluster->mode == CLUSTER_MODE_SINGLECPU && !data->single_cpu_mode) {
+ if ((cluster->mode == CLUSTER_MODE_SINGLECPU && !data->single_cpu_mode) ||
+ (cluster->mode == CLUSTER_MODE_SINGLECORE && !data->is_single_core)) {
dev_err(dev, "Cluster mode = %d is not supported on this SoC\n", cluster->mode);
return -EINVAL;
}
num_cores = of_get_available_child_count(np);
- if (num_cores != 2) {
- dev_err(dev, "MCU cluster requires both R5F cores to be enabled, num_cores = %d\n",
+ if (num_cores != 2 && !data->is_single_core) {
+ dev_err(dev, "MCU cluster requires both R5F cores to be enabled but num_cores is set to = %d\n",
+ num_cores);
+ return -ENODEV;
+ }
+
+ if (num_cores != 1 && data->is_single_core) {
+ dev_err(dev, "SoC supports only single core R5 but num_cores is set to %d\n",
num_cores);
return -ENODEV;
}
@@ -1763,18 +1789,28 @@ static const struct k3_r5_soc_data am65_j721e_soc_data = {
.tcm_is_double = false,
.tcm_ecc_autoinit = false,
.single_cpu_mode = false,
+ .is_single_core = false,
};
static const struct k3_r5_soc_data j7200_j721s2_soc_data = {
.tcm_is_double = true,
.tcm_ecc_autoinit = true,
.single_cpu_mode = false,
+ .is_single_core = false,
};
static const struct k3_r5_soc_data am64_soc_data = {
.tcm_is_double = true,
.tcm_ecc_autoinit = true,
.single_cpu_mode = true,
+ .is_single_core = false,
+};
+
+static const struct k3_r5_soc_data am62_soc_data = {
+ .tcm_is_double = false,
+ .tcm_ecc_autoinit = true,
+ .single_cpu_mode = false,
+ .is_single_core = true,
};
static const struct of_device_id k3_r5_of_match[] = {
@@ -1782,6 +1818,7 @@ static const struct of_device_id k3_r5_of_match[] = {
{ .compatible = "ti,j721e-r5fss", .data = &am65_j721e_soc_data, },
{ .compatible = "ti,j7200-r5fss", .data = &j7200_j721s2_soc_data, },
{ .compatible = "ti,am64-r5fss", .data = &am64_soc_data, },
+ { .compatible = "ti,am62-r5fss", .data = &am62_soc_data, },
{ .compatible = "ti,j721s2-r5fss", .data = &j7200_j721s2_soc_data, },
{ /* sentinel */ },
};
--
2.34.1
cheers,
-roger