[PATCH v6 0/3] Add single core R5F IPC for AM62 SoC family

[PATCH v6 0/3] Add single core R5F IPC for AM62 SoC family

[Devarsh Thakkar]

AM62 SoC family don't have a multicore R5F cluster,
instead they have a single core R5F.
This enables IPC support with single core R5F for AM62
family of SoCs.

Devarsh Thakkar (3):
  remoteproc: k3-r5: Simplify single core config set
  dt-bindings: remoteproc: ti: Add new compatible for AM62 SoC family
  remoteproc: k3-r5: Use separate compatible string for TI AM62x SoC
    family

 .../bindings/remoteproc/ti,k3-r5f-rproc.yaml  | 76 +++++++++++++-----
 drivers/remoteproc/ti_k3_r5_remoteproc.c      | 77 ++++++++++++++-----
 2 files changed, 111 insertions(+), 42 deletions(-)

-- 
2.34.1

[PATCH v6 1/3] remoteproc: k3-r5: Simplify single core config set

[Devarsh Thakkar]

The config PROC_BOOT_CFG_FLAG_R5_SINGLE_CORE
is set only when cluster mode is set to
CLUSTER_MODE_SINGLECPU and cluster mode
is already configured before setting this config.

So directly check for cluster mode instead of checking
soc_data->single_cpu_mode first and then checking
cluster mode.

Signed-off-by: Devarsh Thakkar <devarsht@ti.com>
---
V6: No change
---
 drivers/remoteproc/ti_k3_r5_remoteproc.c | 17 ++++++++---------
 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/ti_k3_r5_remoteproc.c b/drivers/remoteproc/ti_k3_r5_remoteproc.c
index 0481926c6975..036c9dc217f3 100644
--- a/drivers/remoteproc/ti_k3_r5_remoteproc.c
+++ b/drivers/remoteproc/ti_k3_r5_remoteproc.c
@@ -875,15 +875,14 @@ static int k3_r5_rproc_configure(struct k3_r5_rproc *kproc)
 	boot_vec = 0x0;
 	if (core == core0) {
 		clr_cfg = PROC_BOOT_CFG_FLAG_R5_TEINIT;
-		if (cluster->soc_data->single_cpu_mode) {
-			/*
-			 * Single-CPU configuration bit can only be configured
-			 * on Core0 and system firmware will NACK any requests
-			 * with the bit configured, so program it only on
-			 * permitted cores
-			 */
-			if (cluster->mode == CLUSTER_MODE_SINGLECPU)
-				set_cfg = PROC_BOOT_CFG_FLAG_R5_SINGLE_CORE;
+		/*
+		 * Single-CPU configuration bit can only be configured
+		 * on Core0 and system firmware will NACK any requests
+		 * with the bit configured, so program it only on
+		 * permitted cores
+		 */
+		if (cluster->mode == CLUSTER_MODE_SINGLECPU) {
+			set_cfg = PROC_BOOT_CFG_FLAG_R5_SINGLE_CORE;
 		} else {
 			/*
 			 * LockStep configuration bit is Read-only on Split-mode
-- 
2.34.1

Re: [PATCH v6 1/3] remoteproc: k3-r5: Simplify single core config set

[Mathieu Poirier]

On Mon, Jan 16, 2023 at 08:49:04PM +0530, Devarsh Thakkar wrote:
> The config PROC_BOOT_CFG_FLAG_R5_SINGLE_CORE
> is set only when cluster mode is set to
> CLUSTER_MODE_SINGLECPU and cluster mode
> is already configured before setting this config.
> 
> So directly check for cluster mode instead of checking
> soc_data->single_cpu_mode first and then checking
> cluster mode.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Devarsh Thakkar <devarsht@ti.com>
> ---
> V6: No change
> ---
>  drivers/remoteproc/ti_k3_r5_remoteproc.c | 17 ++++++++---------
>  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/ti_k3_r5_remoteproc.c b/drivers/remoteproc/ti_k3_r5_remoteproc.c
> index 0481926c6975..036c9dc217f3 100644
> --- a/drivers/remoteproc/ti_k3_r5_remoteproc.c
> +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/ti_k3_r5_remoteproc.c
> @@ -875,15 +875,14 @@ static int k3_r5_rproc_configure(struct k3_r5_rproc *kproc)
>  	boot_vec = 0x0;
>  	if (core == core0) {
>  		clr_cfg = PROC_BOOT_CFG_FLAG_R5_TEINIT;
> -		if (cluster->soc_data->single_cpu_mode) {
> -			/*
> -			 * Single-CPU configuration bit can only be configured
> -			 * on Core0 and system firmware will NACK any requests
> -			 * with the bit configured, so program it only on
> -			 * permitted cores
> -			 */
> -			if (cluster->mode == CLUSTER_MODE_SINGLECPU)
> -				set_cfg = PROC_BOOT_CFG_FLAG_R5_SINGLE_CORE;
> +		/*
> +		 * Single-CPU configuration bit can only be configured
> +		 * on Core0 and system firmware will NACK any requests
> +		 * with the bit configured, so program it only on
> +		 * permitted cores
> +		 */
> +		if (cluster->mode == CLUSTER_MODE_SINGLECPU) {
> +			set_cfg = PROC_BOOT_CFG_FLAG_R5_SINGLE_CORE;

This is exactly the kind of buggy situation I want to avoid by asking to use
soc_data->single_cpu_mode only in probe().

>  		} else {
>  			/*
>  			 * LockStep configuration bit is Read-only on Split-mode
> -- 
> 2.34.1
> 

[PATCH v6 2/3] dt-bindings: remoteproc: ti: Add new compatible for AM62 SoC family

[Devarsh Thakkar]

AM62 family of devices don't have a R5F cluster, instead
they have single core DM R5F.
Add new compatible string ti,am62-r5fss to support this scenario.

When this new compatible is used cluster-mode
property can only be set to value 3 i.e.
CLUSTER_MODE_SINGLECORE which is also the default value
in case cluster-mode is not defined in device-tree.

While at it, also sort the compatible lists in alphabetical order.

Signed-off-by: Devarsh Thakkar <devarsht@ti.com>
---
V2: Avoid acronyms, use "Device Manager" instead of "DM"
V3:
- Use separate if block for each compatible for ti,cluster-mode
property
- Rearrange compatibles as per alphabatical order
V4: Place each enum in separate line in allOf
V5: No change (fixing typo in email address)
V6: Use cluster-mode=3 for am62x
---
 .../bindings/remoteproc/ti,k3-r5f-rproc.yaml  | 76 ++++++++++++++-----
 1 file changed, 55 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-)

diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/remoteproc/ti,k3-r5f-rproc.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/remoteproc/ti,k3-r5f-rproc.yaml
index fb9605f0655b..fcc3db97fe8f 100644
--- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/remoteproc/ti,k3-r5f-rproc.yaml
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/remoteproc/ti,k3-r5f-rproc.yaml
@@ -21,6 +21,9 @@ description: |
   called "Single-CPU" mode, where only Core0 is used, but with ability to use
   Core1's TCMs as well.
 
+  AM62 SoC family support a single R5F core only which runs Device Manager
+  firmware and can also be used as a remote processor with IPC communication.
+
   Each Dual-Core R5F sub-system is represented as a single DTS node
   representing the cluster, with a pair of child DT nodes representing
   the individual R5F cores. Each node has a number of required or optional
@@ -34,10 +37,11 @@ properties:
 
   compatible:
     enum:
+      - ti,am62-r5fss
+      - ti,am64-r5fss
       - ti,am654-r5fss
-      - ti,j721e-r5fss
       - ti,j7200-r5fss
-      - ti,am64-r5fss
+      - ti,j721e-r5fss
       - ti,j721s2-r5fss
 
   power-domains:
@@ -64,10 +68,17 @@ properties:
     $ref: /schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/uint32
     description: |
       Configuration Mode for the Dual R5F cores within the R5F cluster.
-      Should be either a value of 1 (LockStep mode) or 0 (Split mode) on
+      For most SoCs (AM65x, J721E, J7200, J721s2),
+      It should be either a value of 1 (LockStep mode) or 0 (Split mode) on
       most SoCs (AM65x, J721E, J7200, J721s2), default is LockStep mode if
-      omitted; and should be either a value of 0 (Split mode) or 2
-      (Single-CPU mode) on AM64x SoCs, default is Split mode if omitted.
+      omitted.
+      For AM64x SoCs,
+      It  should be either a value of 0 (Split mode) or 2 (Single-CPU mode) and
+      default is Split mode if omitted.
+      For AM62x SoCs,
+      It should be set as 3 (Single-Core mode) which is also the default if
+      omitted.
+
 
 # R5F Processor Child Nodes:
 # ==========================
@@ -80,7 +91,9 @@ patternProperties:
       node representing a TI instantiation of the Arm Cortex R5F core. There
       are some specific integration differences for the IP like the usage of
       a Region Address Translator (RAT) for translating the larger SoC bus
-      addresses into a 32-bit address space for the processor.
+      addresses into a 32-bit address space for the processor. For AM62x,
+      the R5F Sub-System device node should only define one R5F child node
+      as it has only one core available.
 
       Each R5F core has an associated 64 KB of Tightly-Coupled Memory (TCM)
       internal memories split between two banks - TCMA and TCMB (further
@@ -100,10 +113,11 @@ patternProperties:
     properties:
       compatible:
         enum:
+          - ti,am62-r5f
+          - ti,am64-r5f
           - ti,am654-r5f
-          - ti,j721e-r5f
           - ti,j7200-r5f
-          - ti,am64-r5f
+          - ti,j721e-r5f
           - ti,j721s2-r5f
 
       reg:
@@ -208,19 +222,39 @@ patternProperties:
 
     unevaluatedProperties: false
 
-if:
-  properties:
-    compatible:
-      enum:
-        - ti,am64-r5fss
-then:
-  properties:
-    ti,cluster-mode:
-      enum: [0, 2]
-else:
-  properties:
-    ti,cluster-mode:
-      enum: [0, 1]
+allOf:
+  - if:
+      properties:
+        compatible:
+          enum:
+            - ti,am64-r5fss
+    then:
+      properties:
+        ti,cluster-mode:
+          enum: [0, 2]
+
+  - if:
+      properties:
+        compatible:
+          enum:
+            - ti,am654-r5fss
+            - ti,j7200-r5fss
+            - ti,j721e-r5fss
+            - ti,j721s2-r5fss
+    then:
+      properties:
+        ti,cluster-mode:
+          enum: [0, 1]
+
+  - if:
+      properties:
+        compatible:
+          enum:
+            - ti,am62-r5fss
+    then:
+      properties:
+        ti,cluster-mode:
+          enum: [3]
 
 required:
   - compatible
-- 
2.34.1

Re: [PATCH v6 2/3] dt-bindings: remoteproc: ti: Add new compatible for AM62 SoC family

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On 16/01/2023 16:19, Devarsh Thakkar wrote:
> AM62 family of devices don't have a R5F cluster, instead
> they have single core DM R5F.
> Add new compatible string ti,am62-r5fss to support this scenario.
> 

This is a friendly reminder during the review process.

It looks like you received a tag and forgot to add it.

If you do not know the process, here is a short explanation:
Please add Acked-by/Reviewed-by/Tested-by tags when posting new
versions. However, there's no need to repost patches *only* to add the
tags. The upstream maintainer will do that for acks received on the
version they apply.

https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v5.17/source/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst#L540

If a tag was not added on purpose, please state why and what changed.


Best regards,
Krzysztof

Re: [PATCH v6 2/3] dt-bindings: remoteproc: ti: Add new compatible for AM62 SoC family

[Devarsh Thakkar]

Hi Krzysztof,

On 17/01/23 00:36, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 16/01/2023 16:19, Devarsh Thakkar wrote:
>> AM62 family of devices don't have a R5F cluster, instead
>> they have single core DM R5F.
>> Add new compatible string ti,am62-r5fss to support this scenario.
>>
> 
> This is a friendly reminder during the review process.
> 
> It looks like you received a tag and forgot to add it.
> 
> If you do not know the process, here is a short explanation:
> Please add Acked-by/Reviewed-by/Tested-by tags when posting new
> versions. However, there's no need to repost patches *only* to add the
> tags. The upstream maintainer will do that for acks received on the
> version they apply.
> 
> https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v5.17/source/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst#L540
> 
> If a tag was not added on purpose, please state why and what changed.
I apologize if it was not clear but yes I didn't put the tag as
patch was updated to use cluster-mode=3 for am62x as per review comments on
https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230110183505.GA2741090@p14s/

I'll append a note below commit message on Reviewed-By
removal when I post the next series.

Regards
Devarsh
> 
> 
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof
> 

Re: [PATCH v6 2/3] dt-bindings: remoteproc: ti: Add new compatible for AM62 SoC family

[Raghavendra, Vignesh]

Hi Devarsh,

On 1/17/2023 10:54 AM, Devarsh Thakkar wrote:
> Hi Krzysztof,
> 
> On 17/01/23 00:36, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 16/01/2023 16:19, Devarsh Thakkar wrote:
>>> AM62 family of devices don't have a R5F cluster, instead
>>> they have single core DM R5F.
>>> Add new compatible string ti,am62-r5fss to support this scenario.
>>>
>>
>> This is a friendly reminder during the review process.
>>
>> It looks like you received a tag and forgot to add it.
>>
>> If you do not know the process, here is a short explanation:
>> Please add Acked-by/Reviewed-by/Tested-by tags when posting new
>> versions. However, there's no need to repost patches *only* to add the
>> tags. The upstream maintainer will do that for acks received on the
>> version they apply.
>>
>> https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v5.17/source/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst#L540
>>
>> If a tag was not added on purpose, please state why and what changed.
> I apologize if it was not clear but yes I didn't put the tag as
> patch was updated to use cluster-mode=3 for am62x as per review comments on
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230110183505.GA2741090@p14s/

It would be helpful in future if you document why tag was dropped as
part of change log (below tearline) to indicate its intentional.

> 
> I'll append a note below commit message on Reviewed-By
> removal when I post the next series.

> Regards
> Devarsh
>>
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Krzysztof
>>

[PATCH v6 3/3] remoteproc: k3-r5: Use separate compatible string for TI AM62x SoC family

[Devarsh Thakkar]

AM62 and AM62A SoCs use single core R5F which is a new scenario
different than the one being used with CLUSTER_MODE_SINGLECPU
which is for utilizing a single core from a set of cores available
in R5F cluster present in the SoC.

To support this single core scenario map it with
newly defined CLUSTER_MODE_SINGLECORE and use it when
compatible is set to ti,am62-r5fss.

Also set PROC_BOOT_CFG_FLAG_R5_SINGLE_CORE config for
CLUSTER_MODE_SINGLECORE too as it is required by R5 core when it
is being as general purpose core instead of device manager.

Signed-off-by: Devarsh Thakkar <devarsht@ti.com>
---
V2:
- Fix indentation and ordering issues as per review comments
V3:
- Change CLUSTER_MODE_NONE value to -1
V4:
- No change
V5:
- No change (fixing typo in email address)
V6:
   - Use CLUSTER_MODE_SINGLECORE for AM62x
   - Set PROC_BOOT_CFG_FLAG_R5_SINGLE_CORE for single core.
---
 drivers/remoteproc/ti_k3_r5_remoteproc.c | 62 +++++++++++++++++++-----
 1 file changed, 49 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/ti_k3_r5_remoteproc.c b/drivers/remoteproc/ti_k3_r5_remoteproc.c
index 036c9dc217f3..089215144e6b 100644
--- a/drivers/remoteproc/ti_k3_r5_remoteproc.c
+++ b/drivers/remoteproc/ti_k3_r5_remoteproc.c
@@ -71,14 +71,16 @@ struct k3_r5_mem {
 /*
  * All cluster mode values are not applicable on all SoCs. The following
  * are the modes supported on various SoCs:
- *   Split mode      : AM65x, J721E, J7200 and AM64x SoCs
- *   LockStep mode   : AM65x, J721E and J7200 SoCs
- *   Single-CPU mode : AM64x SoCs only
+ *   Split mode       : AM65x, J721E, J7200 and AM64x SoCs
+ *   LockStep mode    : AM65x, J721E and J7200 SoCs
+ *   Single-CPU mode  : AM64x SoCs only
+ *   Single-Core mode : AM62x, AM62A SoCs
  */
 enum cluster_mode {
 	CLUSTER_MODE_SPLIT = 0,
 	CLUSTER_MODE_LOCKSTEP,
 	CLUSTER_MODE_SINGLECPU,
+	CLUSTER_MODE_SINGLECORE
 };
 
 /**
@@ -86,11 +88,13 @@ enum cluster_mode {
  * @tcm_is_double: flag to denote the larger unified TCMs in certain modes
  * @tcm_ecc_autoinit: flag to denote the auto-initialization of TCMs for ECC
  * @single_cpu_mode: flag to denote if SoC/IP supports Single-CPU mode
+ * @is_single_core: flag to denote if SoC/IP has only single core R5
  */
 struct k3_r5_soc_data {
 	bool tcm_is_double;
 	bool tcm_ecc_autoinit;
 	bool single_cpu_mode;
+	bool is_single_core;
 };
 
 /**
@@ -838,7 +842,8 @@ static int k3_r5_rproc_configure(struct k3_r5_rproc *kproc)
 
 	core0 = list_first_entry(&cluster->cores, struct k3_r5_core, elem);
 	if (cluster->mode == CLUSTER_MODE_LOCKSTEP ||
-	    cluster->mode == CLUSTER_MODE_SINGLECPU) {
+	    cluster->mode == CLUSTER_MODE_SINGLECPU ||
+	    cluster->mode == CLUSTER_MODE_SINGLECORE) {
 		core = core0;
 	} else {
 		core = kproc->core;
@@ -881,7 +886,8 @@ static int k3_r5_rproc_configure(struct k3_r5_rproc *kproc)
 		 * with the bit configured, so program it only on
 		 * permitted cores
 		 */
-		if (cluster->mode == CLUSTER_MODE_SINGLECPU) {
+		if (cluster->mode == CLUSTER_MODE_SINGLECPU ||
+		    cluster->mode == CLUSTER_MODE_SINGLECORE) {
 			set_cfg = PROC_BOOT_CFG_FLAG_R5_SINGLE_CORE;
 		} else {
 			/*
@@ -1073,6 +1079,7 @@ static void k3_r5_adjust_tcm_sizes(struct k3_r5_rproc *kproc)
 
 	if (cluster->mode == CLUSTER_MODE_LOCKSTEP ||
 	    cluster->mode == CLUSTER_MODE_SINGLECPU ||
+	    cluster->mode == CLUSTER_MODE_SINGLECORE ||
 	    !cluster->soc_data->tcm_is_double)
 		return;
 
@@ -1146,7 +1153,9 @@ static int k3_r5_rproc_configure_mode(struct k3_r5_rproc *kproc)
 	atcm_enable = cfg & PROC_BOOT_CFG_FLAG_R5_ATCM_EN ?  1 : 0;
 	btcm_enable = cfg & PROC_BOOT_CFG_FLAG_R5_BTCM_EN ?  1 : 0;
 	loczrama = cfg & PROC_BOOT_CFG_FLAG_R5_TCM_RSTBASE ?  1 : 0;
-	if (cluster->soc_data->single_cpu_mode) {
+	if (cluster->soc_data->is_single_core) {
+		mode = CLUSTER_MODE_SINGLECORE;
+	} else if (cluster->soc_data->single_cpu_mode) {
 		mode = cfg & PROC_BOOT_CFG_FLAG_R5_SINGLE_CORE ?
 				CLUSTER_MODE_SINGLECPU : CLUSTER_MODE_SPLIT;
 	} else {
@@ -1268,9 +1277,12 @@ static int k3_r5_cluster_rproc_init(struct platform_device *pdev)
 			goto err_add;
 		}
 
-		/* create only one rproc in lockstep mode or single-cpu mode */
+		/* create only one rproc in lockstep, single-cpu or
+		 * single core mode
+		 */
 		if (cluster->mode == CLUSTER_MODE_LOCKSTEP ||
-		    cluster->mode == CLUSTER_MODE_SINGLECPU)
+		    cluster->mode == CLUSTER_MODE_SINGLECPU ||
+		    cluster->mode == CLUSTER_MODE_SINGLECORE)
 			break;
 	}
 
@@ -1699,12 +1711,19 @@ static int k3_r5_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
 		return -ENOMEM;
 
 	cluster->dev = dev;
+
 	/*
-	 * default to most common efuse configurations - Split-mode on AM64x
-	 * and LockStep-mode on all others
+	 * default to most common efuse configurations -
+	 * Split-mode on AM64x
+	 * Single core on AM62x
+	 * LockStep-mode on all others
 	 */
-	cluster->mode = data->single_cpu_mode ?
+	if (!data->is_single_core)
+		cluster->mode = data->single_cpu_mode ?
 				CLUSTER_MODE_SPLIT : CLUSTER_MODE_LOCKSTEP;
+	else
+		cluster->mode = CLUSTER_MODE_SINGLECORE;
+
 	cluster->soc_data = data;
 	INIT_LIST_HEAD(&cluster->cores);
 
@@ -1716,8 +1735,14 @@ static int k3_r5_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
 	}
 
 	num_cores = of_get_available_child_count(np);
-	if (num_cores != 2) {
-		dev_err(dev, "MCU cluster requires both R5F cores to be enabled, num_cores = %d\n",
+	if (num_cores != 2 && !data->is_single_core) {
+		dev_err(dev, "MCU cluster requires both R5F cores to be enabled but num_cores is set to = %d\n",
+			num_cores);
+		return -ENODEV;
+	}
+
+	if (num_cores != 1 && data->is_single_core) {
+		dev_err(dev, "SoC supports only single core R5 but num_cores is set to %d\n",
 			num_cores);
 		return -ENODEV;
 	}
@@ -1759,18 +1784,28 @@ static const struct k3_r5_soc_data am65_j721e_soc_data = {
 	.tcm_is_double = false,
 	.tcm_ecc_autoinit = false,
 	.single_cpu_mode = false,
+	.is_single_core = false,
 };
 
 static const struct k3_r5_soc_data j7200_j721s2_soc_data = {
 	.tcm_is_double = true,
 	.tcm_ecc_autoinit = true,
 	.single_cpu_mode = false,
+	.is_single_core = false,
 };
 
 static const struct k3_r5_soc_data am64_soc_data = {
 	.tcm_is_double = true,
 	.tcm_ecc_autoinit = true,
 	.single_cpu_mode = true,
+	.is_single_core = false,
+};
+
+static const struct k3_r5_soc_data am62_soc_data = {
+	.tcm_is_double = false,
+	.tcm_ecc_autoinit = true,
+	.single_cpu_mode = false,
+	.is_single_core = true,
 };
 
 static const struct of_device_id k3_r5_of_match[] = {
@@ -1778,6 +1813,7 @@ static const struct of_device_id k3_r5_of_match[] = {
 	{ .compatible = "ti,j721e-r5fss", .data = &am65_j721e_soc_data, },
 	{ .compatible = "ti,j7200-r5fss", .data = &j7200_j721s2_soc_data, },
 	{ .compatible = "ti,am64-r5fss",  .data = &am64_soc_data, },
+	{ .compatible = "ti,am62-r5fss",  .data = &am62_soc_data, },
 	{ .compatible = "ti,j721s2-r5fss",  .data = &j7200_j721s2_soc_data, },
 	{ /* sentinel */ },
 };
-- 
2.34.1

Re: [PATCH v6 3/3] remoteproc: k3-r5: Use separate compatible string for TI AM62x SoC family

[Mathieu Poirier]

On Mon, Jan 16, 2023 at 08:49:06PM +0530, Devarsh Thakkar wrote:
> AM62 and AM62A SoCs use single core R5F which is a new scenario
> different than the one being used with CLUSTER_MODE_SINGLECPU
> which is for utilizing a single core from a set of cores available
> in R5F cluster present in the SoC.
> 
> To support this single core scenario map it with
> newly defined CLUSTER_MODE_SINGLECORE and use it when
> compatible is set to ti,am62-r5fss.
> 
> Also set PROC_BOOT_CFG_FLAG_R5_SINGLE_CORE config for
> CLUSTER_MODE_SINGLECORE too as it is required by R5 core when it
> is being as general purpose core instead of device manager.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Devarsh Thakkar <devarsht@ti.com>
> ---
> V2:
> - Fix indentation and ordering issues as per review comments
> V3:
> - Change CLUSTER_MODE_NONE value to -1
> V4:
> - No change
> V5:
> - No change (fixing typo in email address)
> V6:
>    - Use CLUSTER_MODE_SINGLECORE for AM62x
>    - Set PROC_BOOT_CFG_FLAG_R5_SINGLE_CORE for single core.
> ---
>  drivers/remoteproc/ti_k3_r5_remoteproc.c | 62 +++++++++++++++++++-----
>  1 file changed, 49 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/ti_k3_r5_remoteproc.c b/drivers/remoteproc/ti_k3_r5_remoteproc.c
> index 036c9dc217f3..089215144e6b 100644
> --- a/drivers/remoteproc/ti_k3_r5_remoteproc.c
> +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/ti_k3_r5_remoteproc.c
> @@ -71,14 +71,16 @@ struct k3_r5_mem {
>  /*
>   * All cluster mode values are not applicable on all SoCs. The following
>   * are the modes supported on various SoCs:
> - *   Split mode      : AM65x, J721E, J7200 and AM64x SoCs
> - *   LockStep mode   : AM65x, J721E and J7200 SoCs
> - *   Single-CPU mode : AM64x SoCs only
> + *   Split mode       : AM65x, J721E, J7200 and AM64x SoCs
> + *   LockStep mode    : AM65x, J721E and J7200 SoCs
> + *   Single-CPU mode  : AM64x SoCs only
> + *   Single-Core mode : AM62x, AM62A SoCs
>   */
>  enum cluster_mode {
>  	CLUSTER_MODE_SPLIT = 0,
>  	CLUSTER_MODE_LOCKSTEP,
>  	CLUSTER_MODE_SINGLECPU,
> +	CLUSTER_MODE_SINGLECORE
>  };
>  
>  /**
> @@ -86,11 +88,13 @@ enum cluster_mode {
>   * @tcm_is_double: flag to denote the larger unified TCMs in certain modes
>   * @tcm_ecc_autoinit: flag to denote the auto-initialization of TCMs for ECC
>   * @single_cpu_mode: flag to denote if SoC/IP supports Single-CPU mode
> + * @is_single_core: flag to denote if SoC/IP has only single core R5
>   */
>  struct k3_r5_soc_data {
>  	bool tcm_is_double;
>  	bool tcm_ecc_autoinit;
>  	bool single_cpu_mode;
> +	bool is_single_core;
>  };
>  
>  /**
> @@ -838,7 +842,8 @@ static int k3_r5_rproc_configure(struct k3_r5_rproc *kproc)
>  
>  	core0 = list_first_entry(&cluster->cores, struct k3_r5_core, elem);
>  	if (cluster->mode == CLUSTER_MODE_LOCKSTEP ||
> -	    cluster->mode == CLUSTER_MODE_SINGLECPU) {
> +	    cluster->mode == CLUSTER_MODE_SINGLECPU ||
> +	    cluster->mode == CLUSTER_MODE_SINGLECORE) {
>  		core = core0;
>  	} else {
>  		core = kproc->core;
> @@ -881,7 +886,8 @@ static int k3_r5_rproc_configure(struct k3_r5_rproc *kproc)
>  		 * with the bit configured, so program it only on
>  		 * permitted cores
>  		 */
> -		if (cluster->mode == CLUSTER_MODE_SINGLECPU) {
> +		if (cluster->mode == CLUSTER_MODE_SINGLECPU ||
> +		    cluster->mode == CLUSTER_MODE_SINGLECORE) {
>  			set_cfg = PROC_BOOT_CFG_FLAG_R5_SINGLE_CORE;

Why was this not part of the 5 previous version?

>  		} else {
>  			/*
> @@ -1073,6 +1079,7 @@ static void k3_r5_adjust_tcm_sizes(struct k3_r5_rproc *kproc)
>  
>  	if (cluster->mode == CLUSTER_MODE_LOCKSTEP ||
>  	    cluster->mode == CLUSTER_MODE_SINGLECPU ||
> +	    cluster->mode == CLUSTER_MODE_SINGLECORE ||
>  	    !cluster->soc_data->tcm_is_double)
>  		return;
>  
> @@ -1146,7 +1153,9 @@ static int k3_r5_rproc_configure_mode(struct k3_r5_rproc *kproc)
>  	atcm_enable = cfg & PROC_BOOT_CFG_FLAG_R5_ATCM_EN ?  1 : 0;
>  	btcm_enable = cfg & PROC_BOOT_CFG_FLAG_R5_BTCM_EN ?  1 : 0;
>  	loczrama = cfg & PROC_BOOT_CFG_FLAG_R5_TCM_RSTBASE ?  1 : 0;
> -	if (cluster->soc_data->single_cpu_mode) {
> +	if (cluster->soc_data->is_single_core) {
> +		mode = CLUSTER_MODE_SINGLECORE;
> +	} else if (cluster->soc_data->single_cpu_mode) {

I have already commented on that.

>  		mode = cfg & PROC_BOOT_CFG_FLAG_R5_SINGLE_CORE ?
>  				CLUSTER_MODE_SINGLECPU : CLUSTER_MODE_SPLIT;
>  	} else {
> @@ -1268,9 +1277,12 @@ static int k3_r5_cluster_rproc_init(struct platform_device *pdev)
>  			goto err_add;
>  		}
>  
> -		/* create only one rproc in lockstep mode or single-cpu mode */
> +		/* create only one rproc in lockstep, single-cpu or
> +		 * single core mode
> +		 */
>  		if (cluster->mode == CLUSTER_MODE_LOCKSTEP ||
> -		    cluster->mode == CLUSTER_MODE_SINGLECPU)
> +		    cluster->mode == CLUSTER_MODE_SINGLECPU ||
> +		    cluster->mode == CLUSTER_MODE_SINGLECORE)
>  			break;
>  	}
>  
> @@ -1699,12 +1711,19 @@ static int k3_r5_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>  		return -ENOMEM;
>  
>  	cluster->dev = dev;
> +
>  	/*
> -	 * default to most common efuse configurations - Split-mode on AM64x
> -	 * and LockStep-mode on all others
> +	 * default to most common efuse configurations -
> +	 * Split-mode on AM64x
> +	 * Single core on AM62x
> +	 * LockStep-mode on all others
>  	 */
> -	cluster->mode = data->single_cpu_mode ?
> +	if (!data->is_single_core)
> +		cluster->mode = data->single_cpu_mode ?
>  				CLUSTER_MODE_SPLIT : CLUSTER_MODE_LOCKSTEP;
> +	else
> +		cluster->mode = CLUSTER_MODE_SINGLECORE;
> +
>  	cluster->soc_data = data;
>  	INIT_LIST_HEAD(&cluster->cores);
>  
> @@ -1716,8 +1735,14 @@ static int k3_r5_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>  	}
>  
>  	num_cores = of_get_available_child_count(np);
> -	if (num_cores != 2) {
> -		dev_err(dev, "MCU cluster requires both R5F cores to be enabled, num_cores = %d\n",
> +	if (num_cores != 2 && !data->is_single_core) {
> +		dev_err(dev, "MCU cluster requires both R5F cores to be enabled but num_cores is set to = %d\n",
> +			num_cores);
> +		return -ENODEV;
> +	}
> +
> +	if (num_cores != 1 && data->is_single_core) {
> +		dev_err(dev, "SoC supports only single core R5 but num_cores is set to %d\n",
>  			num_cores);
>  		return -ENODEV;
>  	}
> @@ -1759,18 +1784,28 @@ static const struct k3_r5_soc_data am65_j721e_soc_data = {
>  	.tcm_is_double = false,
>  	.tcm_ecc_autoinit = false,
>  	.single_cpu_mode = false,
> +	.is_single_core = false,
>  };
>  
>  static const struct k3_r5_soc_data j7200_j721s2_soc_data = {
>  	.tcm_is_double = true,
>  	.tcm_ecc_autoinit = true,
>  	.single_cpu_mode = false,
> +	.is_single_core = false,
>  };
>  
>  static const struct k3_r5_soc_data am64_soc_data = {
>  	.tcm_is_double = true,
>  	.tcm_ecc_autoinit = true,
>  	.single_cpu_mode = true,
> +	.is_single_core = false,
> +};
> +
> +static const struct k3_r5_soc_data am62_soc_data = {
> +	.tcm_is_double = false,
> +	.tcm_ecc_autoinit = true,
> +	.single_cpu_mode = false,
> +	.is_single_core = true,
>  };
>  
>  static const struct of_device_id k3_r5_of_match[] = {
> @@ -1778,6 +1813,7 @@ static const struct of_device_id k3_r5_of_match[] = {
>  	{ .compatible = "ti,j721e-r5fss", .data = &am65_j721e_soc_data, },
>  	{ .compatible = "ti,j7200-r5fss", .data = &j7200_j721s2_soc_data, },
>  	{ .compatible = "ti,am64-r5fss",  .data = &am64_soc_data, },
> +	{ .compatible = "ti,am62-r5fss",  .data = &am62_soc_data, },
>  	{ .compatible = "ti,j721s2-r5fss",  .data = &j7200_j721s2_soc_data, },
>  	{ /* sentinel */ },
>  };
> -- 
> 2.34.1
> 

Re: [PATCH v6 3/3] remoteproc: k3-r5: Use separate compatible string for TI AM62x SoC family

[Devarsh Thakkar]

Hi Mathieu,

On 16/01/23 22:15, Mathieu Poirier wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 16, 2023 at 08:49:06PM +0530, Devarsh Thakkar wrote:
>> AM62 and AM62A SoCs use single core R5F which is a new scenario
>> different than the one being used with CLUSTER_MODE_SINGLECPU
>> which is for utilizing a single core from a set of cores available
>> in R5F cluster present in the SoC.
>>
>> To support this single core scenario map it with
>> newly defined CLUSTER_MODE_SINGLECORE and use it when
>> compatible is set to ti,am62-r5fss.
>>
>> Also set PROC_BOOT_CFG_FLAG_R5_SINGLE_CORE config for
>> CLUSTER_MODE_SINGLECORE too as it is required by R5 core when it
>> is being as general purpose core instead of device manager.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Devarsh Thakkar <devarsht@ti.com>
>> ---
>> V2:
>> - Fix indentation and ordering issues as per review comments
>> V3:
>> - Change CLUSTER_MODE_NONE value to -1
>> V4:
>> - No change
>> V5:
>> - No change (fixing typo in email address)
>> V6:
>>    - Use CLUSTER_MODE_SINGLECORE for AM62x
>>    - Set PROC_BOOT_CFG_FLAG_R5_SINGLE_CORE for single core.
>> ---
>>  drivers/remoteproc/ti_k3_r5_remoteproc.c | 62 +++++++++++++++++++-----
>>  1 file changed, 49 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/ti_k3_r5_remoteproc.c b/drivers/remoteproc/ti_k3_r5_remoteproc.c
>> index 036c9dc217f3..089215144e6b 100644
>> --- a/drivers/remoteproc/ti_k3_r5_remoteproc.c
>> +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/ti_k3_r5_remoteproc.c
>> @@ -71,14 +71,16 @@ struct k3_r5_mem {
>>  /*
>>   * All cluster mode values are not applicable on all SoCs. The following
>>   * are the modes supported on various SoCs:
>> - *   Split mode      : AM65x, J721E, J7200 and AM64x SoCs
>> - *   LockStep mode   : AM65x, J721E and J7200 SoCs
>> - *   Single-CPU mode : AM64x SoCs only
>> + *   Split mode       : AM65x, J721E, J7200 and AM64x SoCs
>> + *   LockStep mode    : AM65x, J721E and J7200 SoCs
>> + *   Single-CPU mode  : AM64x SoCs only
>> + *   Single-Core mode : AM62x, AM62A SoCs
>>   */
>>  enum cluster_mode {
>>  	CLUSTER_MODE_SPLIT = 0,
>>  	CLUSTER_MODE_LOCKSTEP,
>>  	CLUSTER_MODE_SINGLECPU,
>> +	CLUSTER_MODE_SINGLECORE
>>  };
>>  
>>  /**
>> @@ -86,11 +88,13 @@ enum cluster_mode {
>>   * @tcm_is_double: flag to denote the larger unified TCMs in certain modes
>>   * @tcm_ecc_autoinit: flag to denote the auto-initialization of TCMs for ECC
>>   * @single_cpu_mode: flag to denote if SoC/IP supports Single-CPU mode
>> + * @is_single_core: flag to denote if SoC/IP has only single core R5
>>   */
>>  struct k3_r5_soc_data {
>>  	bool tcm_is_double;
>>  	bool tcm_ecc_autoinit;
>>  	bool single_cpu_mode;
>> +	bool is_single_core;
>>  };
>>  
>>  /**
>> @@ -838,7 +842,8 @@ static int k3_r5_rproc_configure(struct k3_r5_rproc *kproc)
>>  
>>  	core0 = list_first_entry(&cluster->cores, struct k3_r5_core, elem);
>>  	if (cluster->mode == CLUSTER_MODE_LOCKSTEP ||
>> -	    cluster->mode == CLUSTER_MODE_SINGLECPU) {
>> +	    cluster->mode == CLUSTER_MODE_SINGLECPU ||
>> +	    cluster->mode == CLUSTER_MODE_SINGLECORE) {
>>  		core = core0;
>>  	} else {
>>  		core = kproc->core;
>> @@ -881,7 +886,8 @@ static int k3_r5_rproc_configure(struct k3_r5_rproc *kproc)
>>  		 * with the bit configured, so program it only on
>>  		 * permitted cores
>>  		 */
>> -		if (cluster->mode == CLUSTER_MODE_SINGLECPU) {
>> +		if (cluster->mode == CLUSTER_MODE_SINGLECPU ||
>> +		    cluster->mode == CLUSTER_MODE_SINGLECORE) {
>>  			set_cfg = PROC_BOOT_CFG_FLAG_R5_SINGLE_CORE;
> 
> Why was this not part of the 5 previous version?

I came to know about this recently only. The AM62x R5 IPC is functional
even without this change but set_config was failing in another single core MCU
R5 chip which was using this compatible. The recommendation I got from firmware
team was to set this flag for all single core R5 scenarios.

Regards,
Devarsh
> 
>>  		} else {
>>  			/*
>> @@ -1073,6 +1079,7 @@ static void k3_r5_adjust_tcm_sizes(struct k3_r5_rproc *kproc)
>>  
>>  	if (cluster->mode == CLUSTER_MODE_LOCKSTEP ||
>>  	    cluster->mode == CLUSTER_MODE_SINGLECPU ||
>> +	    cluster->mode == CLUSTER_MODE_SINGLECORE ||
>>  	    !cluster->soc_data->tcm_is_double)
>>  		return;
>>  
>> @@ -1146,7 +1153,9 @@ static int k3_r5_rproc_configure_mode(struct k3_r5_rproc *kproc)
>>  	atcm_enable = cfg & PROC_BOOT_CFG_FLAG_R5_ATCM_EN ?  1 : 0;
>>  	btcm_enable = cfg & PROC_BOOT_CFG_FLAG_R5_BTCM_EN ?  1 : 0;
>>  	loczrama = cfg & PROC_BOOT_CFG_FLAG_R5_TCM_RSTBASE ?  1 : 0;
>> -	if (cluster->soc_data->single_cpu_mode) {
>> +	if (cluster->soc_data->is_single_core) {
>> +		mode = CLUSTER_MODE_SINGLECORE;
>> +	} else if (cluster->soc_data->single_cpu_mode) {
> 
> I have already commented on that.
> 
>>  		mode = cfg & PROC_BOOT_CFG_FLAG_R5_SINGLE_CORE ?
>>  				CLUSTER_MODE_SINGLECPU : CLUSTER_MODE_SPLIT;
>>  	} else {
>> @@ -1268,9 +1277,12 @@ static int k3_r5_cluster_rproc_init(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>  			goto err_add;
>>  		}
>>  
>> -		/* create only one rproc in lockstep mode or single-cpu mode */
>> +		/* create only one rproc in lockstep, single-cpu or
>> +		 * single core mode
>> +		 */
>>  		if (cluster->mode == CLUSTER_MODE_LOCKSTEP ||
>> -		    cluster->mode == CLUSTER_MODE_SINGLECPU)
>> +		    cluster->mode == CLUSTER_MODE_SINGLECPU ||
>> +		    cluster->mode == CLUSTER_MODE_SINGLECORE)
>>  			break;
>>  	}
>>  
>> @@ -1699,12 +1711,19 @@ static int k3_r5_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>  		return -ENOMEM;
>>  
>>  	cluster->dev = dev;
>> +
>>  	/*
>> -	 * default to most common efuse configurations - Split-mode on AM64x
>> -	 * and LockStep-mode on all others
>> +	 * default to most common efuse configurations -
>> +	 * Split-mode on AM64x
>> +	 * Single core on AM62x
>> +	 * LockStep-mode on all others
>>  	 */
>> -	cluster->mode = data->single_cpu_mode ?
>> +	if (!data->is_single_core)
>> +		cluster->mode = data->single_cpu_mode ?
>>  				CLUSTER_MODE_SPLIT : CLUSTER_MODE_LOCKSTEP;
>> +	else
>> +		cluster->mode = CLUSTER_MODE_SINGLECORE;
>> +
>>  	cluster->soc_data = data;
>>  	INIT_LIST_HEAD(&cluster->cores);
>>  
>> @@ -1716,8 +1735,14 @@ static int k3_r5_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>  	}
>>  
>>  	num_cores = of_get_available_child_count(np);
>> -	if (num_cores != 2) {
>> -		dev_err(dev, "MCU cluster requires both R5F cores to be enabled, num_cores = %d\n",
>> +	if (num_cores != 2 && !data->is_single_core) {
>> +		dev_err(dev, "MCU cluster requires both R5F cores to be enabled but num_cores is set to = %d\n",
>> +			num_cores);
>> +		return -ENODEV;
>> +	}
>> +
>> +	if (num_cores != 1 && data->is_single_core) {
>> +		dev_err(dev, "SoC supports only single core R5 but num_cores is set to %d\n",
>>  			num_cores);
>>  		return -ENODEV;
>>  	}
>> @@ -1759,18 +1784,28 @@ static const struct k3_r5_soc_data am65_j721e_soc_data = {
>>  	.tcm_is_double = false,
>>  	.tcm_ecc_autoinit = false,
>>  	.single_cpu_mode = false,
>> +	.is_single_core = false,
>>  };
>>  
>>  static const struct k3_r5_soc_data j7200_j721s2_soc_data = {
>>  	.tcm_is_double = true,
>>  	.tcm_ecc_autoinit = true,
>>  	.single_cpu_mode = false,
>> +	.is_single_core = false,
>>  };
>>  
>>  static const struct k3_r5_soc_data am64_soc_data = {
>>  	.tcm_is_double = true,
>>  	.tcm_ecc_autoinit = true,
>>  	.single_cpu_mode = true,
>> +	.is_single_core = false,
>> +};
>> +
>> +static const struct k3_r5_soc_data am62_soc_data = {
>> +	.tcm_is_double = false,
>> +	.tcm_ecc_autoinit = true,
>> +	.single_cpu_mode = false,
>> +	.is_single_core = true,
>>  };
>>  
>>  static const struct of_device_id k3_r5_of_match[] = {
>> @@ -1778,6 +1813,7 @@ static const struct of_device_id k3_r5_of_match[] = {
>>  	{ .compatible = "ti,j721e-r5fss", .data = &am65_j721e_soc_data, },
>>  	{ .compatible = "ti,j7200-r5fss", .data = &j7200_j721s2_soc_data, },
>>  	{ .compatible = "ti,am64-r5fss",  .data = &am64_soc_data, },
>> +	{ .compatible = "ti,am62-r5fss",  .data = &am62_soc_data, },
>>  	{ .compatible = "ti,j721s2-r5fss",  .data = &j7200_j721s2_soc_data, },
>>  	{ /* sentinel */ },
>>  };
>> -- 
>> 2.34.1
>>