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=-7.4 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,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 BDED8C48BDF for ; Tue, 15 Jun 2021 19:42:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A53846137D for ; Tue, 15 Jun 2021 19:42:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S231145AbhFOToY (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 Jun 2021 15:44:24 -0400 Received: from fllv0015.ext.ti.com ([198.47.19.141]:50882 "EHLO fllv0015.ext.ti.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S230368AbhFOToS (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 Jun 2021 15:44:18 -0400 Received: from fllv0035.itg.ti.com ([10.64.41.0]) by fllv0015.ext.ti.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 15FJg7GO054577; Tue, 15 Jun 2021 14:42:07 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ti.com; s=ti-com-17Q1; t=1623786127; bh=MmN7hggLu/18z6JpvS+JoXkQHW/H9xgRcXkmXe/LAdM=; h=Date:From:To:CC:Subject:References:In-Reply-To; b=wOVdlOETsYkYqcYFSDg0K7Pa87blI6YzOwt013WTiqObqnD5tNb4HMwsO/1U0Dc2V tzmB49HPl+Dkylfyx5+td0CWxt3ghf6T508/1r8aEu5i2newQTJLdZC8/4VbKnhZOU FlgYzC2HyzSycsKYZ42bWA1n2gp9foTMn4cl53HM= Received: from DLEE114.ent.ti.com (dlee114.ent.ti.com [157.170.170.25]) by fllv0035.itg.ti.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 15FJg7RX128694 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Tue, 15 Jun 2021 14:42:07 -0500 Received: from DLEE111.ent.ti.com (157.170.170.22) by DLEE114.ent.ti.com (157.170.170.25) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.2176.2; Tue, 15 Jun 2021 14:42:07 -0500 Received: from fllv0039.itg.ti.com (10.64.41.19) by DLEE111.ent.ti.com (157.170.170.22) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.2176.2 via Frontend Transport; Tue, 15 Jun 2021 14:42:07 -0500 Received: from localhost (ileax41-snat.itg.ti.com [10.172.224.153]) by fllv0039.itg.ti.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 15FJg7Fn054716; Tue, 15 Jun 2021 14:42:07 -0500 Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2021 14:42:07 -0500 From: Nishanth Menon To: Suman Anna CC: Lokesh Vutla , , Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] arm64: dts: ti: k3-am642-evm/sk: Reserve some on-chip SRAM for R5Fs Message-ID: <20210615194207.ww3ed7hmibfw6tnd@swiftness> References: <20210528144718.25132-1-s-anna@ti.com> <20210528144718.25132-5-s-anna@ti.com> <20210611191353.qn5lgasho2rujyof@situated> <209c545d-c012-9ee8-34ca-bc4f48dbfbcb@ti.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <209c545d-c012-9ee8-34ca-bc4f48dbfbcb@ti.com> User-Agent: NeoMutt/20171215 X-EXCLAIMER-MD-CONFIG: e1e8a2fd-e40a-4ac6-ac9b-f7e9cc9ee180 Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On 13:05-20210614, Suman Anna wrote: > >> +&oc_sram { > >> + main_r5fss0_core0_sram: r5f-sram@40000 { > >> + reg = <0x40000 0x40000>; > >> + }; > >> + > >> + main_r5fss0_core1_sram: r5f-sram@80000 { > >> + reg = <0x80000 0x40000>; > >> + }; > >> + > >> + main_r5fss1_core0_sram: r5f-sram@c0000 { > >> + reg = <0xc0000 0x40000>; > >> + }; > >> + > >> + main_r5fss1_core1_sram: r5f-sram@100000 { > >> + reg = <0x100000 0x40000>; > >> + }; > >> +}; > > > > These addresses are currently in sync with the corresponding firmware linker map > files. Any changes needed here should also be aligned and updated with all the > firmwares then. > > Nishanth, > How about dropping this patch until we conclude the discussion and picking up > the rest? Lets skip this patch for this merge cycle - aka stay compatible with the previous reference binaries that do not use OCSRAM (aka not pick up 4x latency improvement), till we figure out a future looking and relatively stable memory map that considers: a) R5s IPC RAM + future usage: b) M4F IPC RAM c) ICSSG buffer RAMs -- Regards, Nishanth Menon Key (0xDDB5849D1736249D) / Fingerprint: F8A2 8693 54EB 8232 17A3 1A34 DDB5 849D 1736 249D