From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.7 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, NICE_REPLY_A,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E395C2D0E2 for ; Tue, 22 Sep 2020 20:28:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: from merlin.infradead.org (merlin.infradead.org [205.233.59.134]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9731C2223E for ; Tue, 22 Sep 2020 20:28:13 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=lists.infradead.org header.i=@lists.infradead.org header.b="p0KWtKsG"; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key) header.d=ti.com header.i=@ti.com header.b="ikwtlh5/" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 9731C2223E Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=ti.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux-arm-kernel-bounces+linux-arm-kernel=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lists.infradead.org; s=merlin.20170209; h=Sender:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-Type:Cc:List-Subscribe:List-Help:List-Post:List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe:List-Id:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Date:Message-ID:From: References:To:Subject:Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date: Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Owner; bh=/3QdeQlTYJsqY1fD9lMs/YOP4kY7geQlwy7TmsNUJD8=; b=p0KWtKsGvIu+CUm9tBZenhrNZ MkvygOTTkc1uMor42bw8jnjnJjqul+8jUvb1lf3ON7BK8AdxU8CnuQvT/ebJzLYlQecd4A4BQY1O4 AcF3BWUz9NANqA+IJJQkf46WocvLQhsL+TobgGOFtZNlCYYfYyXZp3Sc2ZB+6ihBMFsCHGLqAB8wx 1RTZeVf836YEGZV99QJcDks0YNyjPdXhmkRcDm0NXMTI4kJmSqo9iEpB76DNcT1PfWhHf3F6SNQnf z4RhjdbN+ENhp4Q1qk705Lh45OmcfcWOa0AVSD9O/FKxkW4CAqlnEaw/tetQmYR767bTz+YUFYLqV pb5jxFM6w==; Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=merlin.infradead.org) by merlin.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92.3 #3 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1kKork-0002xT-Ob; Tue, 22 Sep 2020 20:26:20 +0000 Received: from fllv0016.ext.ti.com ([198.47.19.142]) by merlin.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.92.3 #3 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1kKorg-0002wV-IS for linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org; Tue, 22 Sep 2020 20:26:17 +0000 Received: from lelv0266.itg.ti.com ([10.180.67.225]) by fllv0016.ext.ti.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 08MKQAhe042415; Tue, 22 Sep 2020 15:26:10 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ti.com; s=ti-com-17Q1; t=1600806371; bh=kIqH1V5ealEVC5EO+6vAJW+B9sEXlZ5Fpg3hzaZaIWU=; h=Subject:To:CC:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=ikwtlh5/gSnu+ZQbloMTppJU2t6nrvxg1KhvJ1e0nSfoNQqfhIu/Hr110QSiZBe6t eYMkEIryEsfQoq5vl28jW+KI3qqAa249dMB1RhkHO3IL5ups+XxTSy0EZHAtuFXJ98 NoUGWSPHHCovssPbAAvIXARf03NRXzPssZiTx/rk= Received: from DFLE100.ent.ti.com (dfle100.ent.ti.com [10.64.6.21]) by lelv0266.itg.ti.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 08MKQAvA008719 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Tue, 22 Sep 2020 15:26:10 -0500 Received: from DFLE105.ent.ti.com (10.64.6.26) by DFLE100.ent.ti.com (10.64.6.21) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.1979.3; Tue, 22 Sep 2020 15:26:10 -0500 Received: from lelv0327.itg.ti.com (10.180.67.183) by DFLE105.ent.ti.com (10.64.6.26) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.1979.3 via Frontend Transport; Tue, 22 Sep 2020 15:26:10 -0500 Received: from [10.250.36.109] (ileax41-snat.itg.ti.com [10.172.224.153]) by lelv0327.itg.ti.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 08MKQAJV061179; Tue, 22 Sep 2020 15:26:10 -0500 Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/4] TI K3 R5F remoteproc support To: Rob Herring References: <20200908174556.21277-1-s-anna@ti.com> <20200922194753.GA3105316@bogus> From: Suman Anna Message-ID: Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2020 15:26:05 -0500 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.10.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20200922194753.GA3105316@bogus> Content-Language: en-US X-EXCLAIMER-MD-CONFIG: e1e8a2fd-e40a-4ac6-ac9b-f7e9cc9ee180 X-CRM114-Version: 20100106-BlameMichelson ( TRE 0.8.0 (BSD) ) MR-646709E3 X-CRM114-CacheID: sfid-20200922_162616_883075_DDCEFEBA X-CRM114-Status: GOOD ( 20.60 ) X-BeenThere: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: devicetree@vger.kernel.org, Mathieu Poirier , Lokesh Vutla , linux-remoteproc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Bjorn Andersson , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: "linux-arm-kernel" Errors-To: linux-arm-kernel-bounces+linux-arm-kernel=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org Hi Rob, On 9/22/20 2:47 PM, Rob Herring wrote: > On Tue, Sep 08, 2020 at 12:45:52PM -0500, Suman Anna wrote: >> Hi All, >> >> The following is v4 of the TI K3 R5F remoteproc driver series supporting all >> the R5F processor clusters/subsystems on TI AM65x and J721E SoCs. Please >> see the v1 cover-letter [1] for the features supported on these R5F processors. >> >> This series is a rebased version on top of the latest v5.9-rc baseline and >> includes very minor fixes w.r.t v3. The previous K3 DSP dependencies are now >> available in mainline kernel. Please see the individual patches for the delta >> differences (Only patches 1 and 2 updated). >> >> Bjorn, >> This series is only waiting on bindings ack and the conclusion on the bindings >> discussion from v2 [4] on which I haven't seen any forward progress on this >> despite all the clarifications. I do not expect any changes even w.r.t System DT, >> and we can't really have a common binding between TI and Xilinx R5Fs. > First of all, thank you for reviewing this and your response. > Why not? I'm pretty sure lockstep or not is a thing for both and TCMs > seem to be a common thing. The cluster mode is a common theme, and if you have a preference for a common property-name, both I and Ben can use that. The values though might vary between different vendor SoCs. I have given out all the differences and reasons on a v2 thread, the SoC and clock and reset integration aspects make it look very different. Please see the discussion here, https://patchwork.kernel.org/comment/23560321/ There was only one open comment/question I had regarding Core identification w.r.t my binding. Do you prefer a node-name index difference or a separate core-id/cpu-id property identifying which is Core0 and Core1. > > And I don't really think System DT will not impact it. Though it's not > well enough defined to say either way IMO. Yeah agreed. But the current architecture in System DT does allow you to add plugins to generate the proper compliant dts node. In anycase, I doubt TI will ever be using it in general, because we do not have a concept of DT on our firmwares. I have given all these inputs again on v2, but haven't seen any responses on it. So, I do appreciate your feedback. > > But if Bjorn wants to take this, fine. I'm not acking it though nor > worrying about it for any compatibility with system DT. Any specific reasons? For the most part, I am using all standard properties. regards Suman _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel