Re: [PATCH v2] remoteproc: xlnx: add sram support

[Tanmay Shah]

Hello Mathieu,

Thanks for reviews.

All the comments looks good, I will send next revision addressing them all.

On 7/22/24 11:39 AM, Mathieu Poirier wrote:
> Good morning,
> 
> On Mon, Jul 15, 2024 at 06:39:54PM -0700, Tanmay Shah wrote:
>> AMD-Xilinx zynqmp platform contains on-chip sram memory (OCM).
>> R5 cores can access OCM and access is faster than DDR memory but slower
>> than TCM memories available. Sram region can have optional multiple
>> power-domains. Platform management firmware is responsible
>> to operate these power-domains.
>> 
>> Signed-off-by: Tanmay Shah <tanmay.shah@xxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> 
>> Changes in v2:
>>   - Expand commit message with power-domains related information.
>> 
>>  drivers/remoteproc/xlnx_r5_remoteproc.c | 131 ++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>  1 file changed, 131 insertions(+)
>> 
>> diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/xlnx_r5_remoteproc.c b/drivers/remoteproc/xlnx_r5_remoteproc.c
>> index 596f3ffb8935..52ddd42b09e0 100644
>> --- a/drivers/remoteproc/xlnx_r5_remoteproc.c
>> +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/xlnx_r5_remoteproc.c
>> @@ -56,6 +56,17 @@ struct mem_bank_data {
>>  	char *bank_name;
>>  };
>>  
>> +/**
>> + * struct zynqmp_sram_bank - sram bank description
>> + *
>> + * @sram_res: sram address region information
>> + * @da: device address of sram
>> + */
>> +struct zynqmp_sram_bank {
>> +	struct resource sram_res;
>> +	u32 da;
>> +};
>> +
>>  /**
>>   * struct mbox_info
>>   *
>> @@ -120,6 +131,8 @@ static const struct mem_bank_data zynqmp_tcm_banks_lockstep[] = {
>>   * struct zynqmp_r5_core
>>   *
>>   * @rsc_tbl_va: resource table virtual address
>> + * @sram: Array of sram memories assigned to this core
>> + * @num_sram: number of sram for this core
>>   * @dev: device of RPU instance
>>   * @np: device node of RPU instance
>>   * @tcm_bank_count: number TCM banks accessible to this RPU
>> @@ -131,6 +144,8 @@ static const struct mem_bank_data zynqmp_tcm_banks_lockstep[] = {
>>   */
>>  struct zynqmp_r5_core {
>>  	void __iomem *rsc_tbl_va;
>> +	struct zynqmp_sram_bank **sram;
> 
> I suggest making @sram an array rather than an array of pointers - it would
> simplify function zynqmp_r5_get_sram_banks(). 
> 

Ack.

>> +	int num_sram;
>>  	struct device *dev;
>>  	struct device_node *np;
>>  	int tcm_bank_count;
>> @@ -494,6 +509,40 @@ static int add_mem_regions_carveout(struct rproc *rproc)
>>  	return 0;
>>  }
>>  
>> +static int add_sram_carveouts(struct rproc *rproc)
>> +{
>> +	struct zynqmp_r5_core *r5_core = rproc->priv;
>> +	struct rproc_mem_entry *rproc_mem;
>> +	struct zynqmp_sram_bank *sram;
>> +	dma_addr_t dma_addr;
>> +	size_t len;
>> +	int da, i;
>> +
>> +	for (i = 0; i < r5_core->num_sram; i++) {
>> +		sram = r5_core->sram[i];
>> +
>> +		dma_addr = (dma_addr_t)sram->sram_res.start;
>> +		len = resource_size(&sram->sram_res);
>> +		da = sram->da;
>> +
>> +		/* Register associated reserved memory regions */
>> +		rproc_mem = rproc_mem_entry_init(&rproc->dev, NULL,
>> +						 (dma_addr_t)dma_addr,
>> +						 len, da,
>> +						 zynqmp_r5_mem_region_map,
>> +						 zynqmp_r5_mem_region_unmap,
>> +						 sram->sram_res.name);
>> +
>> +		rproc_add_carveout(rproc, rproc_mem);
>> +		rproc_coredump_add_segment(rproc, da, len);
>> +
>> +		dev_dbg(&rproc->dev, "sram carveout %s addr=%llx, da=0x%x, size=0x%lx",
>> +			sram->sram_res.name, dma_addr, da, len);
>> +	}
>> +
>> +	return 0;
>> +}
>> +
>>  /*
>>   * tcm_mem_unmap()
>>   * @rproc: single R5 core's corresponding rproc instance
>> @@ -669,6 +718,12 @@ static int zynqmp_r5_rproc_prepare(struct rproc *rproc)
>>  		return ret;
>>  	}
>>  
>> +	ret = add_sram_carveouts(rproc);
>> +	if (ret) {
>> +		dev_err(&rproc->dev, "failed to get sram carveout %d\n", ret);
>> +		return ret;
>> +	}
>> +
>>  	return 0;
>>  }
>>  
>> @@ -881,6 +936,78 @@ static struct zynqmp_r5_core *zynqmp_r5_add_rproc_core(struct device *cdev)
>>  	return ERR_PTR(ret);
>>  }
>>  
>> +static int zynqmp_r5_get_sram_banks(struct zynqmp_r5_core *r5_core)
>> +{
>> +	struct zynqmp_sram_bank **sram, *sram_data;
>> +	struct device_node *np = r5_core->np;
>> +	struct device *dev = r5_core->dev;
>> +	struct device_node *sram_np;
>> +	int num_sram, i, ret;
>> +	u64 abs_addr, size;
>> +
>> +	/* "sram" is optional proprty. Do not fail, if unavailable. */
> 
> s/proprty/property

Ack.

> 
>> +	if (!of_find_property(r5_core->np, "sram", NULL))
>> +		return 0;
>> +
>> +	num_sram = of_property_count_elems_of_size(np, "sram", sizeof(phandle));
>> +	if (num_sram <= 0) {
> 
> Any reason this is "<" rather than "<=" ?

I will make it < 1.

> 
>> +		dev_err(dev, "Invalid sram property, ret = %d\n",
>> +			num_sram);
>> +		return -EINVAL;
>> +	}
>> +
>> +	sram = devm_kcalloc(dev, num_sram,
>> +			    sizeof(struct zynqmp_sram_bank *), GFP_KERNEL);
>> +	if (!sram)
>> +		return -ENOMEM;
>> +
>> +	for (i = 0; i < num_sram; i++) {
>> +		sram_data = devm_kzalloc(dev, sizeof(struct zynqmp_sram_bank),
>> +					 GFP_KERNEL);
>> +		if (!sram_data)
>> +			return -ENOMEM;
>> +
>> +		sram_np = of_parse_phandle(np, "sram", i);
>> +		if (!sram_np) {
>> +			dev_err(dev, "failed to get sram %d phandle\n", i);
>> +			return -EINVAL;
>> +		}
>> +
>> +		if (!of_device_is_available(sram_np)) {
>> +			of_node_put(sram_np);
>> +			dev_err(dev, "sram device not available\n");
>> +			return -EINVAL;
>> +		}
>> +
>> +		ret = of_address_to_resource(sram_np, 0, &sram_data->sram_res);
>> +		of_node_put(sram_np);
> 
> Why calling this here when sram_np is used below?
> 

Ack.
I wanted to keep of_node_put as close as of_node_get.
But, I think within same function I can move of_node_put after all use of sram_np.

I didn't face any runtime errors though, so I am wondering is it required ?

I will move it anyway as suggested.

>> +		if (ret) {
>> +			dev_err(dev, "addr to res failed\n");
>> +			return ret;
>> +		}
>> +
>> +		/* Get SRAM device address */
>> +		ret = of_property_read_reg(sram_np, i, &abs_addr, &size);
>> +		if (ret) {
>> +			dev_err(dev, "failed to get reg property\n");
>> +			return ret;
>> +		}
>> +
>> +		sram_data->da = (u32)abs_addr;
>> +
>> +		sram[i] = sram_data;
>> +
>> +		dev_dbg(dev, "sram %d: name=%s, addr=0x%llx, da=0x%x, size=0x%llx\n",
>> +			i, sram[i]->sram_res.name, sram[i]->sram_res.start,
>> +			sram[i]->da, resource_size(&sram[i]->sram_res));
>> +	}
>> +
>> +	r5_core->sram = sram;
>> +	r5_core->num_sram = num_sram;
>> +
>> +	return 0;
>> +}
>> +
>>  static int zynqmp_r5_get_tcm_node_from_dt(struct zynqmp_r5_cluster *cluster)
>>  {
>>  	int i, j, tcm_bank_count, ret, tcm_pd_idx, pd_count;
>> @@ -1095,6 +1222,10 @@ static int zynqmp_r5_core_init(struct zynqmp_r5_cluster *cluster,
>>  				return ret;
>>  			}
>>  		}
>> +
>> +		ret = zynqmp_r5_get_sram_banks(r5_core);
>> +		if (ret)
>> +			return ret;
>>  	}
> 
> Thanks,
> Mathieu
> 
>>  
>>  	return 0;
>> 
>> base-commit: d87dbfd31796f810ed777aee4919f211b4a6c7fb
>> -- 
>> 2.25.1
>>