Re: [PATCH v4 0/5] remoteproc: imx_rproc: Support i.MX95

Mathieu Poirier
2025-07-21T14:23:56Z

On Sun, 20 Jul 2025 at 21:08, Peng Fan <peng.fan@oss.nxp.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jul 18, 2025 at 11:06:04AM -0600, Mathieu Poirier wrote:
> >On Fri, Jul 18, 2025 at 04:20:34PM +0800, Peng Fan wrote:
> >> On Thu, Jul 17, 2025 at 08:48:43AM -0600, Mathieu Poirier wrote:
> >> >On Mon, Jul 14, 2025 at 11:52:05AM +0000, Peng Fan wrote:
> >> >> > Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/5] remoteproc: imx_rproc: Support i.MX95
> >> >> >
> >> >> [...]
> >> >> > New warnings running 'make CHECK_DTBS=y for
> >> >> > arch/arm64/boot/dts/freescale/' for 20250710-imx95-rproc-1-v4-0-
> >> >> > a7123e857dfb@nxp.com:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > arch/arm64/boot/dts/freescale/imx95-tqma9596sa-mb-smarc-2.dtb:
> >> >> > scmi (arm,scmi): Unevaluated properties are not allowed
> >> >> > ('protocol@80', 'protocol@81', 'protocol@82', 'protocol@84' were
> >> >> > unexpected)
> >> >>
> >> >> Same as replied in v3.
> >> >> This is because [1] is still not picked, not because of my patchset.
> >> >
> >> >I won't move on this patchset until this is resolved.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Not understand why hold on this patchset. I suppose you may not
> >> understand what the error means. The warning is totally irrelevant
> >> to this patchset, there is no dependency.
> >>
> >> Others added a property to arch/arm64/boot/dts/freescale/imx95-tqma9596sa.dtsi
> >> &scmi_bbm {
> >> linux,code = <KEY_POWER>;
> >> };
> >> But this "linux,code" property not landed(missed to be picked up) to DT binding.
> >>
> >> This patchset does not touch scmi_bbm. I could help address the warning
> >> in the other patch, but I do not see why "linux,code" under scmi_bbm node
> >> could block this patchset.
> >>
> >> Please help clarify if you still think to hold on this patchset.
> >>
> >> BTW: with [1] "remoteproc: imx_rproc: skip clock enable when M-core is managed by the SCU"
> >> merged in Ulf's tree, there is a minor conflict with patch 2. Please suggest
> >> what I should do with this patchset.
> >>
> >
> >I was afraid of that. The best way forward with this work is to wait for the
> >"linux,code" property to be picked up by Sudeep. I suggest you make sure that
> >he, or anyone else, picks it up for the next merge window. If that happens
>
>
> I respect you as maintainer, but there is no reason to block this patch
> because of "linux,code" property. It is totally irrelevant.
>
> Even if I help to resubmit that "linux,code" patch, there is no chance to
> land into 6.17-rc1, both Sudeep and Shawn sent their PR to arm-soc earlier
> before your comments. You could raise in V3.. which there was time left.
>

I don't know what you mean by V3.

> >everything should be set for you to resend this patchset when 6.17-rc1 comes
> >out.
>
> Because of the code conflict in Ulf's tree, I will hold on until 6.17-rc1.

Exactly

> Patch 4 and 5 will be removed from this patchset in V5. The two patches
> should go through Shawn's tree, I will resend them in a separate thread
> with "linux,code" patch included. There will be no more CHECK_DTBS
> warning in V5 for i.MX95 remoteproc support.
>

That is a better way to proceed.

> If you have concern on patch 1-3 or else, please raise earlier. As of now,

If I remember correctly, those patches looked fine to me.

> patch 1-3 in V5 will be almost same as V4 with only a minor code
> conflict resolved, with below change
> @@ -1030,7 +1030,8 @@ static int imx_rproc_clk_enable(struct imx_rproc *priv)
> int ret;
>
> /* Remote core is not under control of Linux or it is managed by SCU API */
> - if (dcfg->method == IMX_RPROC_NONE || dcfg->method == IMX_RPROC_SCU_API)
> + if (dcfg->method == IMX_RPROC_NONE || dcfg->method == IMX_RPROC_SCU_API ||
> + dcfg->method == IMX_RPROC_SCU_SM)
> return 0;
>
> Regards,
> Peng
> >
> >> [1]https://lore.kernel.org/linux-remoteproc/20250629172512.14857-3-hiagofranco@gmail.com/T/#u
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Peng