Re: [PATCH v5] remoteproc: xlnx: add sram support

[Mathieu Poirier]

On Wed, Sep 04, 2024 at 06:16:47PM +0000, Shah, Tanmay wrote:
> Hi Mathieu,
> 
> I agree with your assessment, and I agree with your proposal.
> I appreciate you fixing the patch before applying.
>

I have applied this patch.

> My email client (Thunderbird) has some issues, hence sending email form different email
> client and so not formatted as expected. This will be fixed soon (before sending anymore patches).
> 
> Thanks,
> Tanmay
> 
> On 9/4/24, 11:21 AM, "Mathieu Poirier" <mathieu.poirier@xxxxxxxxxx <mailto:mathieu.poirier@xxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
> 
> 
> Good morning,
> 
> 
> On Fri, Aug 30, 2024 at 10:37:36AM -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 <mailto:tanmay.shah@xxxxxxx>>
> > ---
> > 
> > Changes in v5:
> > - remoteproc: xlnx: remove genpool use for OCM sram
> > 
> > Changes in v4:
> > - Free previously allocalted genpool if adding carveouts fail for any
> > sram.
> > - add comment about sram size used in creating carveouts.
> > 
> > Changes in v3:
> > - make @sram an array rather than an array of pointers
> > - fix of_node_put usage to maintain proper refcount of node
> > - s/proprty/property
> > - Use gen pool framework for mapping sram address space.
> > 
> > Changes in v2:
> > - Expand commit message with power-domains related information.
> > 
> > 
> > drivers/remoteproc/xlnx_r5_remoteproc.c | 135 ++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > 1 file changed, 135 insertions(+)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/xlnx_r5_remoteproc.c b/drivers/remoteproc/xlnx_r5_remoteproc.c
> > index 2cea97c746fd..af4e0e53dc9d 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;
> > + int num_sram;
> > struct device *dev;
> > struct device_node *np;
> > int tcm_bank_count;
> > @@ -494,6 +509,45 @@ 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;
> > +
> > + rproc_mem = rproc_mem_entry_init(&rproc->dev, NULL,
> > + (dma_addr_t)dma_addr,
> 
> 
> @dma_addr is already declared as a dma_addr_t, which is what
> rproc_mem_entry_init() is expecting. As such I do not see a reason for the
> extra casting - do you?
> 
> 
> If you agree with my assessment I am proposing to remove it before applying the
> patch rather than having to send another revision.
> 
> 
> Let me know what you think.
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> Mathieu
> 
> 
> > + len, da,
> > + zynqmp_r5_mem_region_map,
> > + zynqmp_r5_mem_region_unmap,
> > + sram->sram_res.name);
> > + if (!rproc_mem) {
> > + dev_err(&rproc->dev, "failed to add sram %s da=0x%x, size=0x%lx",
> > + sram->sram_res.name, da, len);
> > + return -ENOMEM;
> > + }
> > +
> > + 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 +723,12 @@ 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 +941,77 @@ 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 device_node *np = r5_core->np;
> > + struct device *dev = r5_core->dev;
> > + struct zynqmp_sram_bank *sram;
> > + struct device_node *sram_np;
> > + int num_sram, i, ret;
> > + u64 abs_addr, size;
> > +
> > + /* "sram" is optional property. Do not fail, if unavailable. */
> > + if (!of_property_present(r5_core->np, "sram"))
> > + return 0;
> > +
> > + num_sram = of_property_count_elems_of_size(np, "sram", sizeof(phandle));
> > + if (num_sram <= 0) {
> > + 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_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)) {
> > + dev_err(dev, "sram device not available\n");
> > + ret = -EINVAL;
> > + goto fail_sram_get;
> > + }
> > +
> > + ret = of_address_to_resource(sram_np, 0, &sram[i].sram_res);
> > + if (ret) {
> > + dev_err(dev, "addr to res failed\n");
> > + goto fail_sram_get;
> > + }
> > +
> > + /* 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");
> > + goto fail_sram_get;
> > + }
> > +
> > + sram[i].da = (u32)abs_addr;
> > +
> > + of_node_put(sram_np);
> > +
> > + 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;
> > +
> > +fail_sram_get:
> > + of_node_put(sram_np);
> > +
> > + return ret;
> > +}
> > +
> > 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 +1226,10 @@ 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;
> > }
> > 
> > return 0;
> > 
> > base-commit: 057e5c17e29fe67fae4c2786d558c31fd3b106ba
> > -- 
> > 2.25.1
> > 
> 
> 
>