Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] remoteproc: xlnx: enable auto boot feature

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

On Thu, May 21, 2026 at 01:38:57PM -0500, Shah, Tanmay wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> Thank you for the reviews, please find my comments below:
> 
> On 5/21/2026 12:48 PM, Mathieu Poirier wrote:
> > Good morning,
> > 
> > I don't recal reviewing the first revision of this set.  Can you provide a link
> > to it so that I can read the comments that were provided?
> > 
> 
> Here it is:
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-remoteproc/20260422202558.2362971-1-tanmay.shah@amd.com/
> 
> The device-tree bindings needed rework in v1, so I sent v2, before we
> ever reviewed the driver part.
> 
> 
> > On Fri, May 01, 2026 at 07:37:07AM -0700, Tanmay Shah wrote:
> >> remoteproc framework has capability to start (or attach to) the remote
> > 
> > The remoteproc framework...
> > 
> 
> Ack.
> 
> >> processor automatically if auto boot flag is set by the driver during
> >> probe. If remote core is not started before the Linux boot, and linux is
> >> expected to start the remote core then it uses "firmware-name" property
> >> to load default firmware during auto boot.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Tanmay Shah <tanmay.shah@amd.com>
> >> ---
> >>  drivers/remoteproc/xlnx_r5_remoteproc.c | 48 +++++++++++++++++--------
> >>  1 file changed, 34 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/xlnx_r5_remoteproc.c b/drivers/remoteproc/xlnx_r5_remoteproc.c
> >> index 45a62cb98072..652030f9cea2 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/remoteproc/xlnx_r5_remoteproc.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/xlnx_r5_remoteproc.c
> >> @@ -899,17 +899,18 @@ static const struct rproc_ops zynqmp_r5_rproc_ops = {
> >>  };
> >>  
> >>  /**
> >> - * zynqmp_r5_add_rproc_core() - Add core data to framework.
> >> - * Allocate and add struct rproc object for each r5f core
> >> + * zynqmp_r5_alloc_rproc_core() - alloc rproc core data structure
> >> + * Allocate struct rproc object for each r5f core
> >>   * This is called for each individual r5f core
> >>   *
> >>   * @cdev: Device node of each r5 core
> >>   *
> >>   * Return: zynqmp_r5_core object for success else error code pointer
> >>   */
> >> -static struct zynqmp_r5_core *zynqmp_r5_add_rproc_core(struct device *cdev)
> >> +static struct zynqmp_r5_core *zynqmp_r5_alloc_rproc_core(struct device *cdev)
> > 
> > Why is there a need to change the function's name?
> > 
> 
> Before, the function was actually adding the rproc core by calling
> rproc_add() function, but now it only allocates the memory by calling
> rproc_alloc(). For auto boot to work it's important to add rproc core
> after all the other hw is initialized (such as mbox, tcm, sram,
> power-domains etc). More details below [1].
> 

Ok

> >>  {
> >>  	struct zynqmp_r5_core *r5_core;
> >> +	const char *fw_name = NULL;
> >>  	struct rproc *r5_rproc;
> >>  	int ret;
> >>  
> >> @@ -918,10 +919,15 @@ static struct zynqmp_r5_core *zynqmp_r5_add_rproc_core(struct device *cdev)
> >>  	if (ret)
> >>  		return ERR_PTR(ret);
> >>  
> >> +	ret = rproc_of_parse_firmware(cdev, 0, &fw_name);
> >> +	if (ret < 0 && ret != -EINVAL)
> >> +		return ERR_PTR(dev_err_probe(cdev, ret,
> >> +					     "failed to parse firmware-name\n"));
> >> +
> >>  	/* Allocate remoteproc instance */
> >>  	r5_rproc = rproc_alloc(cdev, dev_name(cdev),
> >>  			       &zynqmp_r5_rproc_ops,
> >> -			       NULL, sizeof(struct zynqmp_r5_core));
> >> +			       fw_name, sizeof(struct zynqmp_r5_core));
> >>  	if (!r5_rproc) {
> >>  		dev_err(cdev, "failed to allocate memory for rproc instance\n");
> >>  		return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
> >> @@ -932,6 +938,11 @@ static struct zynqmp_r5_core *zynqmp_r5_add_rproc_core(struct device *cdev)
> >>  	r5_rproc->recovery_disabled = true;
> >>  	r5_rproc->has_iommu = false;
> >>  	r5_rproc->auto_boot = false;
> >> +
> >> +	/* attempt to boot automatically if the firmware-name is provided */
> >> +	if (fw_name)
> >> +		r5_rproc->auto_boot = true;
> >> +
> > 
> > What happens when a firmware name needs to be provided in the DT but you don't
> > want to automatically boot the remote processor?
> > 
> 
> I think that use case is not needed. If the user/system-designer doesn't
> want auto-boot, then having firmware-name in the device-tree serves no
> purpose. User can always load the firmware via sysfs once kernel boots.
> 

Ok

> >>  	r5_core = r5_rproc->priv;
> >>  	r5_core->dev = cdev;
> >>  	r5_core->np = dev_of_node(cdev);
> >> @@ -941,13 +952,6 @@ static struct zynqmp_r5_core *zynqmp_r5_add_rproc_core(struct device *cdev)
> >>  		goto free_rproc;
> >>  	}
> >>  
> >> -	/* Add R5 remoteproc core */
> >> -	ret = rproc_add(r5_rproc);
> >> -	if (ret) {
> >> -		dev_err(cdev, "failed to add r5 remoteproc\n");
> >> -		goto free_rproc;
> >> -	}
> >> -
> > 
> > I'm not sure why there is a need to move this to zynqmp_r5_cluster_init()?  Is
> > it simply to make the error path easier to handle?  If so, please do that in a
> > separate patch.
> > 
> 
> [1] This was moved to make auto-boot work. The remote core can auto-boot
> only after other hardware is initialized. The zynqmp_r5_core_init()
> initializes sram, TCM and power-domains of the core. Also, mailbox is
> requested before zynqmp_r5_core_init() as well. We can't auto-boot core
> directly without all this. So, I had to move rproc_add() at the end of
> the cluster init, and rename above function from
> zynqmp_r5_add_rproc_core to zynqmp_r5_alloc_rproc_core.
> 
> If you prefer, I will add above explanation in the commit text, or as
> comment right before rproc_add().
> 

Yes, please add that to the commit log.

> 
> 
> >>  	r5_core->rproc = r5_rproc;
> >>  	return r5_core;
> >>  
> >> @@ -1280,6 +1284,7 @@ static int zynqmp_r5_core_init(struct zynqmp_r5_cluster *cluster,
> >>  			if (zynqmp_r5_get_rsc_table_va(r5_core))
> >>  				dev_dbg(r5_core->dev, "rsc tbl not found\n");
> >>  			r5_core->rproc->state = RPROC_DETACHED;
> >> +			r5_core->rproc->auto_boot = true;
> > 
> > I thought this was done in zynqmp_r5_add_rproc_core() - what am I missing?
> > 
> 
> That function is now zynqmp_r5_alloc_core() as mentioned above. Also,
> until now, auto_boot was set to 'false' only to show that it is
> disabled. It is actually used and enabled now.
> 

Ok

> > Thanks,
> > Mathieu
> > 
> >>  		}
> >>  	}
> >>  
> >> @@ -1304,7 +1309,7 @@ static int zynqmp_r5_cluster_init(struct zynqmp_r5_cluster *cluster)
> >>  	enum rpu_oper_mode fw_reg_val;
> >>  	struct device **child_devs;
> >>  	enum rpu_tcm_comb tcm_mode;
> >> -	int core_count, ret, i;
> >> +	int core_count, ret, i, j;
> >>  	struct mbox_info *ipi;
> >>  
> >>  	ret = of_property_read_u32(dev_node, "xlnx,cluster-mode", &cluster_mode);
> >> @@ -1390,7 +1395,7 @@ static int zynqmp_r5_cluster_init(struct zynqmp_r5_cluster *cluster)
> >>  		child_devs[i] = &child_pdev->dev;
> >>  
> >>  		/* create and add remoteproc instance of type struct rproc */
> >> -		r5_cores[i] = zynqmp_r5_add_rproc_core(&child_pdev->dev);
> >> +		r5_cores[i] = zynqmp_r5_alloc_rproc_core(&child_pdev->dev);
> >>  		if (IS_ERR(r5_cores[i])) {
> >>  			ret = PTR_ERR(r5_cores[i]);
> >>  			r5_cores[i] = NULL;
> >> @@ -1435,16 +1440,31 @@ static int zynqmp_r5_cluster_init(struct zynqmp_r5_cluster *cluster)
> >>  		goto release_r5_cores;
> >>  	}
> >>  
> >> +	for (j = 0; j < cluster->core_count; j++) {
> >> +		/* Add R5 remoteproc core */
> >> +		ret = rproc_add(r5_cores[j]->rproc);
> >> +		if (ret) {
> >> +			dev_err_probe(r5_cores[j]->dev, ret,
> >> +				      "failed to add remoteproc\n");
> >> +			goto delete_r5_cores;
> >> +		}
> >> +	}
> >> +
> >>  	kfree(child_devs);
> >>  	return 0;
> >>  
> >> +delete_r5_cores:
> >> +	i = core_count - 1;
> >> +	/* delete previous added rproc */
> >> +	while (--j >= 0)
> >> +		rproc_del(r5_cores[j]->rproc);
> >> +
> >>  release_r5_cores:
> >>  	while (i >= 0) {
> >>  		put_device(child_devs[i]);
> >>  		if (r5_cores[i]) {
> >>  			zynqmp_r5_free_mbox(r5_cores[i]->ipi);
> >>  			of_reserved_mem_device_release(r5_cores[i]->dev);
> >> -			rproc_del(r5_cores[i]->rproc);
> >>  			rproc_free(r5_cores[i]->rproc);
> >>  		}
> >>  		i--;
> >> -- 
> >> 2.34.1
> >>
>