Re: [PATCH v10 4/4] remoteproc: zynqmp: parse TCM from device tree

[Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@linaro.org>]

Good morning,

On Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 09:54:50AM -0800, Tanmay Shah wrote:
> ZynqMP TCM information was fixed in driver. Now ZynqMP TCM information
> is available in device-tree. Parse TCM information in driver
> as per new bindings.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Tanmay Shah <tanmay.shah@amd.com>
> ---
> 
> Changes in v10:
>   - Remove redundant changes to handle TCM in lockstep mode
> 
> Changes in v9:
>   - Introduce new API to request and release core1 TCM power-domains in
>     lockstep mode. This will be used during prepare -> add_tcm_banks
>     callback to enable TCM in lockstep mode.
>   - Parse TCM from device-tree in lockstep mode and split mode in
>     uniform way.
>   - Fix TCM representation in device-tree in lockstep mode.
> 
> Changes in v8:
>   - Remove pm_domains framework
>   - Remove checking of pm_domain_id validation to power on/off tcm
>   - Remove spurious change
>   - parse power-domains property from device-tree and use EEMI calls
>     to power on/off TCM instead of using pm domains framework
> 
> Changes in v7:
>   - move checking of pm_domain_id from previous patch
>   - fix mem_bank_data memory allocation
> 
>  drivers/remoteproc/xlnx_r5_remoteproc.c | 112 ++++++++++++++++++++++--
>  1 file changed, 107 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/xlnx_r5_remoteproc.c b/drivers/remoteproc/xlnx_r5_remoteproc.c
> index 42b0384d34f2..49e8eaf83fce 100644
> --- a/drivers/remoteproc/xlnx_r5_remoteproc.c
> +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/xlnx_r5_remoteproc.c
> @@ -74,8 +74,8 @@ struct mbox_info {
>  };
>  
>  /*
> - * Hardcoded TCM bank values. This will be removed once TCM bindings are
> - * accepted for system-dt specifications and upstreamed in linux kernel
> + * Hardcoded TCM bank values. This will stay in driver to maintain backward
> + * compatibility with device-tree that does not have TCM information.
>   */
>  static const struct mem_bank_data zynqmp_tcm_banks_split[] = {
>  	{0xffe00000UL, 0x0, 0x10000UL, PD_R5_0_ATCM, "atcm0"}, /* TCM 64KB each */
> @@ -757,6 +757,103 @@ static struct zynqmp_r5_core *zynqmp_r5_add_rproc_core(struct device *cdev)
>  	return ERR_PTR(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;
> +	struct of_phandle_args out_args = {0};

Is this really needed?  As far as I can tell it isn't.  

Otherwise and if it wasn't for the modification on the DT side, I would apply
this patch.

Thanks,
Mathieu

> +	struct zynqmp_r5_core *r5_core;
> +	struct platform_device *cpdev;
> +	struct mem_bank_data *tcm;
> +	struct device_node *np;
> +	struct resource *res;
> +	u64 abs_addr, size;
> +	struct device *dev;
> +
> +	for (i = 0; i < cluster->core_count; i++) {
> +		r5_core = cluster->r5_cores[i];
> +		dev = r5_core->dev;
> +		np = r5_core->np;
> +
> +		pd_count = of_count_phandle_with_args(np, "power-domains",
> +						      "#power-domain-cells");
> +
> +		if (pd_count <= 0) {
> +			dev_err(dev, "invalid power-domains property, %d\n", pd_count);
> +			return -EINVAL;
> +		}
> +
> +		/* First entry in power-domains list is for r5 core, rest for TCM. */
> +		tcm_bank_count = pd_count - 1;
> +
> +		if (tcm_bank_count <= 0) {
> +			dev_err(dev, "invalid TCM count %d\n", tcm_bank_count);
> +			return -EINVAL;
> +		}
> +
> +		r5_core->tcm_banks = devm_kcalloc(dev, tcm_bank_count,
> +						  sizeof(struct mem_bank_data *),
> +						  GFP_KERNEL);
> +		if (!r5_core->tcm_banks)
> +			ret = -ENOMEM;
> +
> +		r5_core->tcm_bank_count = tcm_bank_count;
> +		for (j = 0, tcm_pd_idx = 1; j < tcm_bank_count; j++, tcm_pd_idx++) {
> +			tcm = devm_kzalloc(dev, sizeof(struct mem_bank_data),
> +					   GFP_KERNEL);
> +			if (!tcm)
> +				return -ENOMEM;
> +
> +			r5_core->tcm_banks[j] = tcm;
> +
> +			/* Get power-domains id of TCM. */
> +			ret = of_parse_phandle_with_args(np, "power-domains",
> +							 "#power-domain-cells",
> +							 tcm_pd_idx, &out_args);
> +			if (ret) {
> +				dev_err(r5_core->dev,
> +					"failed to get tcm %d pm domain, ret %d\n",
> +					tcm_pd_idx, ret);
> +				return ret;
> +			}
> +			tcm->pm_domain_id = out_args.args[0];
> +			of_node_put(out_args.np);
> +
> +			/* Get TCM address without translation. */
> +			ret = of_property_read_reg(np, j, &abs_addr, &size);
> +			if (ret) {
> +				dev_err(dev, "failed to get reg property\n");
> +				return ret;
> +			}
> +
> +			/*
> +			 * Remote processor can address only 32 bits
> +			 * so convert 64-bits into 32-bits. This will discard
> +			 * any unwanted upper 32-bits.
> +			 */
> +			tcm->da = (u32)abs_addr;
> +			tcm->size = (u32)size;
> +
> +			cpdev = to_platform_device(dev);
> +			res = platform_get_resource(cpdev, IORESOURCE_MEM, j);
> +			if (!res) {
> +				dev_err(dev, "failed to get tcm resource\n");
> +				return -EINVAL;
> +			}
> +
> +			tcm->addr = (u32)res->start;
> +			tcm->bank_name = (char *)res->name;
> +			res = devm_request_mem_region(dev, tcm->addr, tcm->size,
> +						      tcm->bank_name);
> +			if (!res) {
> +				dev_err(dev, "failed to request tcm resource\n");
> +				return -EINVAL;
> +			}
> +		}
> +	}
> +
> +	return 0;
> +}
> +
>  /**
>   * zynqmp_r5_get_tcm_node()
>   * Ideally this function should parse tcm node and store information
> @@ -835,9 +932,14 @@ static int zynqmp_r5_core_init(struct zynqmp_r5_cluster *cluster,
>  	struct zynqmp_r5_core *r5_core;
>  	int ret, i;
>  
> -	ret = zynqmp_r5_get_tcm_node(cluster);
> -	if (ret < 0) {
> -		dev_err(dev, "can't get tcm node, err %d\n", ret);
> +	r5_core = cluster->r5_cores[0];
> +	if (of_find_property(r5_core->np, "reg", NULL))
> +		ret = zynqmp_r5_get_tcm_node_from_dt(cluster);
> +	else
> +		ret = zynqmp_r5_get_tcm_node(cluster);
> +
> +	if (ret) {
> +		dev_err(dev, "can't get tcm, err %d\n", ret);
>  		return ret;
>  	}
>  
> -- 
> 2.25.1
>