Re: [PATCH v2] remoteproc: xilinx: add mailbox channels for rpmsg

From: Mathieu Poirier
Date: Thu Feb 02 2023 - 16:05:52 EST

Next message: Waiman Long: "Re: [PATCH 1/2] cpuset: Fix cpuset_cpus_allowed() to not filter offline CPUs"
Previous message: pr-tracker-bot: "Re: [GIT PULL] s390 fixes for 6.2-rc7"
In reply to: Tanmay Shah: "Re: [PATCH v2] remoteproc: xilinx: add mailbox channels for rpmsg"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

On Thu, Feb 02, 2023 at 10:17:28AM -0800, Tanmay Shah wrote:
> Hi Mathieu,
>
> Thanks for reviews.
>
> Please find my comments below.
>
> On 1/31/23 2:59 PM, Mathieu Poirier wrote:
> > Good afternoon,
> >
> > On Thu, Jan 26, 2023 at 01:31:54PM -0800, Tanmay Shah wrote:
> > > This patch makes each r5 core mailbox client and uses
> > > tx and rx channels to send and receive data to/from
> > > remote processor respectively. This is needed for rpmsg
> > > communication to remote processor.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Tanmay Shah <tanmay.shah@xxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > >
> > > Changes in v2:
> > > - fix vrings carveout names as expeceted by remoteproc framework
> > >
> > This should be in a patch on its own along with a "Fixes" tag.
>
> Ack.
>
> Next time I will send series of two patches.
>
> First patch to fix vrings name with fixes tag and second patch to add
> mailbox support.
>
>
> >
> > > drivers/remoteproc/xlnx_r5_remoteproc.c | 352 ++++++++++++++++++++----
> > > 1 file changed, 292 insertions(+), 60 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/xlnx_r5_remoteproc.c b/drivers/remoteproc/xlnx_r5_remoteproc.c
> > > index 2db57d394155..45ce7f2089bf 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/remoteproc/xlnx_r5_remoteproc.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/xlnx_r5_remoteproc.c
> > > @@ -8,16 +8,23 @@
> > > #include <linux/dma-mapping.h>
> > > #include <linux/firmware/xlnx-zynqmp.h>
> > > #include <linux/kernel.h>
> > > +#include <linux/mailbox_client.h>
> > > +#include <linux/mailbox/zynqmp-ipi-message.h>
> > > #include <linux/module.h>
> > > #include <linux/of_address.h>
> > > #include <linux/of_platform.h>
> > > #include <linux/of_reserved_mem.h>
> > > #include <linux/platform_device.h>
> > > #include <linux/remoteproc.h>
> > > -#include <linux/slab.h>
> > > #include "remoteproc_internal.h"
> > > +/* IPI buffer MAX length */
> > > +#define IPI_BUF_LEN_MAX 32U
> > > +
> > The documentation for struct zynqmp_ipi_message clearly states that @data is
> > fixed to 12 bytes, whereas here is it set to 32 bytes. Wrong documentation or
> > bug?
>
> As per hardware reference manual, each message buffer is 32-bytes. There
> should be bug in IPI driver documentation.
>
> I will test this before sending new patch. If 32-bytes are supported, then I
> will send patch to fix IPI driver with fixes tag as well.
>
>
> > > +/* RX mailbox client buffer max length */
> > > +#define MBOX_CLIENT_BUF_MAX (IPI_BUF_LEN_MAX + \
> > > + sizeof(struct zynqmp_ipi_message))
> > > /*
> > > * settings for RPU cluster mode which
> > > * reflects possible values of xlnx,cluster-mode dt-property
> > > @@ -65,6 +72,12 @@ static const struct mem_bank_data zynqmp_tcm_banks[] = {
> > > * @rmem: reserved memory region nodes from device tree
> > > * @rproc: rproc handle
> > > * @pm_domain_id: RPU CPU power domain id
> > > + * @rx_mc_buf: to copy data from mailbox rx channel
> > > + * @tx_mc_buf: to copy data to mailbox tx channel
> > > + * @mbox_work: schedule work after receiving data from mailbox
> > > + * @mbox_cl: mailbox client
> > > + * @tx_chan: mailbox tx channel
> > > + * @rx_chan: mailbox rx channel
> > > */
> > > struct zynqmp_r5_core {
> > > struct device *dev;
> > > @@ -75,6 +88,14 @@ struct zynqmp_r5_core {
> > > struct reserved_mem **rmem;
> > > struct rproc *rproc;
> > > u32 pm_domain_id;
> > > +
> > > + /* mailbox related data structures */
> > > + unsigned char rx_mc_buf[MBOX_CLIENT_BUF_MAX];
> > > + unsigned char tx_mc_buf[MBOX_CLIENT_BUF_MAX];
> > > + struct work_struct mbox_work;
> > > + struct mbox_client mbox_cl;
> > > + struct mbox_chan *tx_chan;
> > > + struct mbox_chan *rx_chan;
> > > };
> > > /**
> > > @@ -92,6 +113,181 @@ struct zynqmp_r5_cluster {
> > > struct zynqmp_r5_core **r5_cores;
> > > };
> > > +/**
> > > + * event_notified_idr_cb() - callback for vq_interrupt per notifyid
> > > + * @id: rproc->notify id
> > > + * @ptr: pointer to idr private data
> > > + * @data: data passed to idr_for_each callback
> > > + *
> > > + * Pass notification to remoteproc virtio
> > > + *
> > > + * Return: 0. having return is to satisfy the idr_for_each() function
> > > + * pointer input argument requirement.
> > > + **/
> > > +static int event_notified_idr_cb(int id, void *ptr, void *data)
> > > +{
> > > + struct rproc *rproc = data;
> > > +
> > > + if (rproc_vq_interrupt(rproc, id) == IRQ_NONE)
> > > + dev_dbg(&rproc->dev, "data not found for vqid=%d\n", id);
> > > +
> > > + return 0;
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +/**
> > > + * handle_event_notified() - remoteproc notification work function
> > > + * @work: pointer to the work structure
> > > + *
> > > + * It checks each registered remoteproc notify IDs.
> > > + */
> > > +static void handle_event_notified(struct work_struct *work)
> > > +{
> > > + struct zynqmp_r5_core *r5_core;
> > > + struct rproc *rproc;
> > > +
> > > + r5_core = container_of(work, struct zynqmp_r5_core, mbox_work);
> > > + rproc = r5_core->rproc;
> > > +
> > > + /*
> > > + * We only use IPI for interrupt. The RPU firmware side may or may
> > > + * not write the notifyid when it trigger IPI.
> > > + * And thus, we scan through all the registered notifyids and
> > > + * find which one is valid to get the message.
> > > + * Even if message from firmware is NULL, we attempt to get vqid
> > > + */
> > > + idr_for_each(&rproc->notifyids, event_notified_idr_cb, rproc);
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +/**
> > > + * zynqmp_r5_mb_rx_cb() - receive channel mailbox callback
> > > + * @cl: mailbox client
> > > + * @msg: message pointer
> > > + *
> > > + * Receive data from ipi buffer, ack interrupt and then
> > > + * it will schedule the R5 notification work.
> > > + */
> > > +static void zynqmp_r5_mb_rx_cb(struct mbox_client *cl, void *msg)
> > > +{
> > > + struct zynqmp_ipi_message *ipi_msg, *buf_msg;
> > > + struct zynqmp_r5_core *r5_core;
> > > + size_t len;
> > > +
> > > + r5_core = container_of(cl, struct zynqmp_r5_core, mbox_cl);
> > > +
> > > + /* copy data from ipi buffer to r5_core */
> > > + ipi_msg = (struct zynqmp_ipi_message *)msg;
> > > + buf_msg = (struct zynqmp_ipi_message *)r5_core->rx_mc_buf;
> > > + len = ipi_msg->len;
> > > + if (len > IPI_BUF_LEN_MAX) {
> > > + dev_warn(r5_core->dev, "msg size exceeded than %d\n",
> > > + IPI_BUF_LEN_MAX);
> > > + len = IPI_BUF_LEN_MAX;
> > > + }
> > > + buf_msg->len = len;
> > > + memcpy(buf_msg->data, ipi_msg->data, len);
> > > +
> > > + /* received and processed interrupt ack */
> > > + if (mbox_send_message(r5_core->rx_chan, NULL) < 0)
> > > + dev_err(r5_core->dev, "ack failed to mbox rx_chan\n");
> > > +
> > > + schedule_work(&r5_core->mbox_work);
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +/**
> > > + * zynqmp_r5_setup_mbox() - Setup mailboxes related properties
> > > + * this is used for each individual R5 core
> > > + *
> > > + * @r5_core: pointer to the ZynqMP r5 core data
> > > + *
> > > + * Function to setup mailboxes related properties
> > > + *
> > > + */
> > > +static void zynqmp_r5_setup_mbox(struct zynqmp_r5_core *r5_core)
> > > +{
> > > + struct zynqmp_r5_cluster *cluster;
> > > + struct mbox_client *mbox_cl;
> > > +
> > > + cluster = dev_get_drvdata(r5_core->dev->parent);
> > > +
> > > + /**
> > Extra '*', please remove.
>
> ACK.
>
>
> >
> > > + * ToDo: Use only one IPI channel for APU to communicate with both RPUs
> > > + * in split mode. As of now, two IPI channels are expeceted for APU
> > > + * to communicate with RPU. for example, APU(IPI0)<-> RPU0(IPI1) and
> > > + * APU(IPI7)<->RPU1(IPI2). However, this is not the optimized use
> > > + * of the hardware. As per hardware reference manual, each IPI channel
> > > + * can receive interrupt from another IPI channel. So APU must be able
> > > + * to communicate with both RPUs simultaneously using same IPI channel.
> > > + * For example, this is valid case: APU(IPI0)<->RPU0(IPI1) and
> > > + * APU(IPI0)<->RPU1(IPI2). However, with current available examples
> > > + * and RPU firmware, this configuration in device-tree is causing system-crash.
> > > + * And so, using extra IPI channel is required in device-tree. In split
> > > + * mode explicitly inform user about this limitation and requirement.
> > > + */
> > > + if (cluster->mode == SPLIT_MODE)
> > > + dev_warn(r5_core->dev, "split mode: APU should use two IPI channels\n");
> > This comment doesn't do anything useful, please remove.
>
>
> ACK.
>
>
> >
> > > +
> > > + mbox_cl = &r5_core->mbox_cl;
> > > + mbox_cl->rx_callback = zynqmp_r5_mb_rx_cb;
> > > + mbox_cl->tx_block = false;
> > > + mbox_cl->knows_txdone = false;
> > > + mbox_cl->tx_done = NULL;
> > > + mbox_cl->dev = r5_core->dev;
> > > +
> > > + /* Request TX and RX channels */
> > > + r5_core->tx_chan = mbox_request_channel_byname(mbox_cl, "tx");
> > > + if (IS_ERR(r5_core->tx_chan)) {
> > > + r5_core->tx_chan = NULL;
> > > + return;
> > > + }
> > > +
> > > + r5_core->rx_chan = mbox_request_channel_byname(mbox_cl, "rx");
> > > + if (IS_ERR(r5_core->rx_chan)) {
> > > + mbox_free_channel(r5_core->tx_chan);
> > > + r5_core->rx_chan = NULL;
> > > + r5_core->tx_chan = NULL;
> > > + return;
> > > + }
> > > +
> > > + INIT_WORK(&r5_core->mbox_work, handle_event_notified);
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +static void zynqmp_r5_free_mbox(struct zynqmp_r5_core *r5_core)
> > > +{
> > > + if (r5_core->tx_chan) {
> > > + mbox_free_channel(r5_core->tx_chan);
> > > + r5_core->tx_chan = NULL;
> > > + }
> > > +
> > > + if (r5_core->rx_chan) {
> > > + mbox_free_channel(r5_core->rx_chan);
> > > + r5_core->rx_chan = NULL;
> > > + }
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +/*
> > > + * zynqmp_r5_core_kick() - kick a firmware if mbox is provided
> > > + * @rproc: r5 core's corresponding rproc structure
> > > + * @vqid: virtqueue ID
> > > + */
> > > +static void zynqmp_r5_rproc_kick(struct rproc *rproc, int vqid)
> > > +{
> > > + struct zynqmp_r5_core *r5_core = rproc->priv;
> > > + struct device *dev = r5_core->dev;
> > > + struct zynqmp_ipi_message *mb_msg;
> > > + int ret;
> > > +
> > > + /* don't handle kick if mbox setup failed for this core */
> > > + if (!r5_core->tx_chan && !r5_core->rx_chan)
> > > + return;
> > > +
> > > + mb_msg = (struct zynqmp_ipi_message *)r5_core->tx_mc_buf;
> > > + memcpy(mb_msg->data, &vqid, sizeof(vqid));
> > > + mb_msg->len = sizeof(vqid);
> > > + ret = mbox_send_message(r5_core->tx_chan, mb_msg);
> > > + if (ret < 0)
> > > + dev_warn(dev, "failed to send message\n");
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > /*
> > > * zynqmp_r5_set_mode()
> > > *
> > > @@ -227,6 +423,63 @@ static int zynqmp_r5_mem_region_unmap(struct rproc *rproc,
> > > return 0;
> > > }
> > > +/**
> > > + * zynqmp_r5_get_mem_region_node()
> > > + * parse memory-region property and get reserved mem regions
> > > + *
> > > + * @r5_core: pointer to zynqmp_r5_core type object
> > > + *
> > > + * Return: 0 for success and error code for failure.
> > > + */
> > > +static int zynqmp_r5_get_mem_region_node(struct zynqmp_r5_core *r5_core)
> > > +{
> > > + struct device_node *np, *rmem_np;
> > > + struct reserved_mem **rmem;
> > > + int res_mem_count, i;
> > > + struct device *dev;
> > > +
> > > + dev = r5_core->dev;
> > > + np = r5_core->np;
> > > +
> > > + res_mem_count = of_property_count_elems_of_size(np, "memory-region",
> > > + sizeof(phandle));
> > > +
> > > + if (res_mem_count <= 0) {
> > > + dev_warn(dev, "failed to get memory-region property %d\n",
> > > + res_mem_count);
> > > + return 0;
> > > + }
> > > +
> > > + if (!r5_core->tx_chan && !r5_core->rx_chan)
> > > + res_mem_count = 1;
> > Hackish, please remove. There should not be a need to mix mailbox information
> > with memory regions.
>
> ACK.
>
>
> >
> > > +
> > > + rmem = devm_kcalloc(dev, res_mem_count,
> > > + sizeof(struct reserved_mem *), GFP_KERNEL);
> > > + if (!rmem)
> > > + return -ENOMEM;
> > > +
> > > + for (i = 0; i < res_mem_count; i++) {
> > > + rmem_np = of_parse_phandle(np, "memory-region", i);
> > > + if (!rmem_np)
> > > + goto release_rmem;
> > > +
> > > + rmem[i] = of_reserved_mem_lookup(rmem_np);
> > > + if (!rmem[i]) {
> > > + of_node_put(rmem_np);
> > > + goto release_rmem;
> > > + }
> > > +
> > > + of_node_put(rmem_np);
> > > + }
> > > +
> > > + r5_core->rmem_count = res_mem_count;
> > > + r5_core->rmem = rmem;
> > > + return 0;
> > > +
> > > +release_rmem:
> > > + return -EINVAL;
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > /*
> > > * add_mem_regions_carveout()
> > > * @rproc: single R5 core's corresponding rproc instance
> > > @@ -241,6 +494,7 @@ static int add_mem_regions_carveout(struct rproc *rproc)
> > > struct zynqmp_r5_core *r5_core;
> > > struct reserved_mem *rmem;
> > > int i, num_mem_regions;
> > > + const char *name;
> > > r5_core = (struct zynqmp_r5_core *)rproc->priv;
> > > num_mem_regions = r5_core->rmem_count;
> > > @@ -253,15 +507,33 @@ static int add_mem_regions_carveout(struct rproc *rproc)
> > > rproc_mem = rproc_of_resm_mem_entry_init(&rproc->dev, i,
> > > rmem->size,
> > > rmem->base,
> > > - rmem->name);
> > > + "vdev0buffer");
> > This looks very hackish.
> >
> > > } else {
> > > + /*
> > > + * As per bindings 3rd entry in memory-region property
> > > + * must contain vring0 and 4th entry must contain vring1
> > > + * memory-regions. For remoteproc framework it is
> > > + * required to have fixed names for these carveouts i.e.
> > > + * in the form of "vdev%dvring%d" where first %d is ID
> > > + * of vdev and second %d is ID of vring. Assign fix names
> > > + * instead of node names, as node names may contain
> > > + * @unit-address as well i.e. vdev0vring0@xxxxxxxx which
> > > + * won't work.
> > > + */
> > > + if (!strncmp(rmem->name, "vdev0vring0", strlen("vdev0vring0")))
> > > + name = "vdev0vring0";
> > > + else if (!strncmp(rmem->name, "vdev0vring1", strlen("vdev0vring1")))
> > > + name = "vdev0vring1";
> > > + else
> > > + name = rmem->name;
> > > +
> > So does this. It would be much better to get the right rmem->name before
> > getting to this function, something that should be done in
> > zynqmp_r5_get_mem_region_node(). Look at stm32_rproc_prepare() for an example
> > on how to get the right name reserve memory entries.
> >
> > I am also reasonning this problem has become obvious now that mailboxes are
> > working. That said I also think it should have been caught when the patchset
> > adding support for r5f was worked on.
>
> Yes correct. Actually I had tested with only one core at a time.
>
> During testing my device-tree had only node name and not node address (i.e.
> @xxxxxx)
>
> So, I couldn't catch the issue. Also, mailbox wasn't supported so I couldn't
> put vrings to use at
>
> that time. I started facing the issue when both cores were up simultaneously
> and I couldn't put
>
> duplicate node names and I started adding vrings node addresses.
>
> I will see how to parse node-name only from format "node-name@unit-address".
>
> That should resolve all above hacks.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Tanmay
>
>
> > > /* Register associated reserved memory regions */
> > > rproc_mem = rproc_mem_entry_init(&rproc->dev, NULL,
> > > (dma_addr_t)rmem->base,
> > > rmem->size, rmem->base,
> > > zynqmp_r5_mem_region_map,
> > > zynqmp_r5_mem_region_unmap,
> > > - rmem->name);
> > > + name);
> > > }
> > > if (!rproc_mem)
> > > @@ -572,6 +844,20 @@ static int zynqmp_r5_rproc_prepare(struct rproc *rproc)
> > > return ret;
> > > }
> > > + /*
> > > + * If mailbox nodes are disabled using "status" property then setting up
> > > + * mailbox channels will be failed and in that case, we don't need vrings
> > > + * and vdevbuffer for this core. So, setup mailbox before parsing
> > > + * memory-region property. If "tx" and "rx" mailboxes are not setup, then
> > > + * only parse and add first memory-region carveout. As per bindings, it
> > > + * must be firmware load region
> > > + */
> > > + zynqmp_r5_setup_mbox(rproc->priv);
> > > +
> > Setting up mailboxes should return an error code when not successful.
>
>
> In case of failure that function is printing relative error messages.
> However, If mailbox nodes
>
> are disabled in device-tree with status property, then it is expected that
> mailbox setup will fail. However,
>
> that should not stop remoteproc LCM functionality as user still should be
> able to start/stop/loadfw functionality.
>
> So, I did not see need to return error code.
>
> I will add return error code, however that won't stop rest of the driver
> functionality. I can just print some warning
>
> message based on error code.
>
>
> > Moreover,
> > why do mailboxes have to be initialised at prepare() time and not once in the
> > probe() function?
>
> ACK.
>
> This part I will take care. I will let you know if I face any problems while
> moving this to probe otherwise I am okay.
>
>
> >
> > > + ret = zynqmp_r5_get_mem_region_node(rproc->priv);
> > > + if (ret)
> > > + dev_warn(&rproc->dev, "memory-region prop failed %d\n", ret);
> > > +
> > > ret = add_mem_regions_carveout(rproc);
> > > if (ret) {
> > > dev_err(&rproc->dev, "failed to get reserve mem regions %d\n", ret);
> > > @@ -597,6 +883,8 @@ static int zynqmp_r5_rproc_unprepare(struct rproc *rproc)
> > > r5_core = (struct zynqmp_r5_core *)rproc->priv;
> > > + zynqmp_r5_free_mbox(r5_core);
> > > +
> > > for (i = 0; i < r5_core->tcm_bank_count; i++) {
> > > pm_domain_id = r5_core->tcm_banks[i]->pm_domain_id;
> > > if (zynqmp_pm_release_node(pm_domain_id))
> > > @@ -617,6 +905,7 @@ static const struct rproc_ops zynqmp_r5_rproc_ops = {
> > > .find_loaded_rsc_table = rproc_elf_find_loaded_rsc_table,
> > > .sanity_check = rproc_elf_sanity_check,
> > > .get_boot_addr = rproc_elf_get_boot_addr,
> > > + .kick = zynqmp_r5_rproc_kick,
> > A kick() function should added only when mailboxes are present rather than
> > invariably as it is now.
>
>
> May be I am missing something but, I believe this is const variable and I
> may not be able to modify it once initialized.
>
> Is it ok to remove const? then I can take care of adding kick based on mbox
> is available or not.
>

Exactly. Yes, the "const" can be removed.

>
> >
> > > };
> > > /**
> > > @@ -726,59 +1015,6 @@ static int zynqmp_r5_get_tcm_node(struct zynqmp_r5_cluster *cluster)
> > > return 0;
> > > }
> > > -/**
> > > - * zynqmp_r5_get_mem_region_node()
> > > - * parse memory-region property and get reserved mem regions
> > > - *
> > > - * @r5_core: pointer to zynqmp_r5_core type object
> > > - *
> > > - * Return: 0 for success and error code for failure.
> > > - */
> > > -static int zynqmp_r5_get_mem_region_node(struct zynqmp_r5_core *r5_core)
> > > -{
> > > - struct device_node *np, *rmem_np;
> > > - struct reserved_mem **rmem;
> > > - int res_mem_count, i;
> > > - struct device *dev;
> > > -
> > > - dev = r5_core->dev;
> > > - np = r5_core->np;
> > > -
> > > - res_mem_count = of_property_count_elems_of_size(np, "memory-region",
> > > - sizeof(phandle));
> > > - if (res_mem_count <= 0) {
> > > - dev_warn(dev, "failed to get memory-region property %d\n",
> > > - res_mem_count);
> > > - return 0;
> > > - }
> > > -
> > > - rmem = devm_kcalloc(dev, res_mem_count,
> > > - sizeof(struct reserved_mem *), GFP_KERNEL);
> > > - if (!rmem)
> > > - return -ENOMEM;
> > > -
> > > - for (i = 0; i < res_mem_count; i++) {
> > > - rmem_np = of_parse_phandle(np, "memory-region", i);
> > > - if (!rmem_np)
> > > - goto release_rmem;
> > > -
> > > - rmem[i] = of_reserved_mem_lookup(rmem_np);
> > > - if (!rmem[i]) {
> > > - of_node_put(rmem_np);
> > > - goto release_rmem;
> > > - }
> > > -
> > > - of_node_put(rmem_np);
> > > - }
> > > -
> > > - r5_core->rmem_count = res_mem_count;
> > > - r5_core->rmem = rmem;
> > > - return 0;
> > > -
> > > -release_rmem:
> > > - return -EINVAL;
> > > -}
> > > -
> > Why was this moved instead of simply adding a forward declaration at the top of
> > the file?
>
>
> ACK. That's good idea. Thanks!
>
>
> >
> > > /*
> > > * zynqmp_r5_core_init()
> > > * Create and initialize zynqmp_r5_core type object
> > > @@ -806,10 +1042,6 @@ static int zynqmp_r5_core_init(struct zynqmp_r5_cluster *cluster,
> > > for (i = 0; i < cluster->core_count; i++) {
> > > r5_core = cluster->r5_cores[i];
> > > - ret = zynqmp_r5_get_mem_region_node(r5_core);
> > > - if (ret)
> > > - dev_warn(dev, "memory-region prop failed %d\n", ret);
> > > -
> > Why doing this since this driver doesn't support attach()/detach() operations
> > yet?
>
>
> I see, so we should always fail if memory-region property isn't defined?

My comment is about moving zynqmp_r5_get_mem_region_node() to the prepare()
function. There shouldn't be a need to do that.

>
> Actually it is also possible to load and boot firmware completely out of
> TCM.
>
> Since the driver has TCM addresses, we don't really need memory-region
> property at all in
>
> that case. So by not failing when memory-region is not defined, we are
> giving chance to
>
> load and boot firmware from TCM. I can add this in comment.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Tanmay
>
>
> > Thanks,
> > Mathieu
> >
> > > /* Initialize r5 cores with power-domains parsed from dts */
> > > ret = of_property_read_u32_index(r5_core->np, "power-domains",
> > > 1, &r5_core->pm_domain_id);
> > >
> > > base-commit: 10de8156ed71d3dbd7e9099aa76e67ea2c37d4ff
> > > --
> > > 2.25.1
> > >

Next message: Waiman Long: "Re: [PATCH 1/2] cpuset: Fix cpuset_cpus_allowed() to not filter offline CPUs"
Previous message: pr-tracker-bot: "Re: [GIT PULL] s390 fixes for 6.2-rc7"
In reply to: Tanmay Shah: "Re: [PATCH v2] remoteproc: xilinx: add mailbox channels for rpmsg"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]