Re: [PATCH 1/2] dt-bindings: remoteproc: xlnx: add auto boot feature

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

On Fri, Apr 24, 2026 at 12:52:40PM -0500, Shah, Tanmay wrote:
> 
> 
> On 4/24/2026 11:53 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> > On 23/04/2026 19:59, Shah, Tanmay wrote:
> >> Ack, I will rename it to xlnx,auto-boot.
> >>
> >>>>
> >>>>>> +        type: boolean
> >>>>>> +        description: remote core is either already running or ready to boot
> >>>>>
> >>>>> And why is this property of a board?
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Not sure what indicates it is? The property is under remoteproc child
> >>>> device that is SOC level property. Remote core is on same SOC wher linux
> >>>> core is running.
> >>>
> >>> So it is implied by SoC compatible? Please provide some arguments why it
> >>> cannot be implied by the SoC compatible. I gave you one way out, but if
> >>> you disagree then no problem.
> >>>
> >>
> >> So on some SoC, the bootloader supports loading and starting of the
> >> remote processor. But it is totally user's choice. User can choose to
> >> load & start one core of a cluster via bootloader and leave another core
> >> powered-off.
> >> That is why it is not possible to decide based on SoC compatible.
> > 
> > OK. The problem is that "user" is a bit vague and usually user choice
> > goes to user-space.
> > 
> > The property will be set or unset for ALL of given boards. So all of the
> > DTS->DTB. That's why it should be clear why all such boards should
> > behave like you described. If this is truly user, as in user-space,
> > choice, then DT is not the way.
> > 
> 
> Okay 'user' may not be the right choice of word. I should say 'hardware
> configuration'. On same SoC, some cores can be configured to boot
> automatically before Linux boots, and some won't. So if device-tree is
> about hardware configuration, then we need a way to show which core is
> configured to boot before linux. This configuration is board agnostic.
> So I think auto-boot in device-tree makes sense.
> 
> The only advantage on this platform is, it has a way to detect if the
> core is running or not runtime and don't have to rely on device-tree.
> 
> > 
> >>
> >> If we don't want to make it a device-tree property then I can implement
> >> in a different way. New way will detect if the remote is running or not
> >> via EMMI/SCMI call to the firmware, and take a decision based on that.
> >> If this new way works, then I don't think we need auto-boot property at all.
> >>
> >> Let me know your thoughts.
> > 
> > This works for me and solves my questions from DT point of view, but I
> > cannot judge whether this makes sense for you.
> > 
> 
> I say I will keep it open ended for now. I will avoid introducing
> auto-boot in the device-tree for now, and send a patch without it. In
> future if for some other reason this property is needed, will send new
> patch later.
>

In light of this conversation, should I still review this patchset or it was
made obsolete by "[PATCH] remoteproc: xlnx: check remote node state" ?

 
> Thanks,
> Tanmay
> 
> > 
> > Best regards,
> > Krzysztof
>