[PATCH 0/2] TI: K3: Switch MCU R5F cluster into Split mode

[PATCH 0/2] TI: K3: Switch MCU R5F cluster into Split mode

[Beleswar Padhi]

Several TI K3 SoCs like J7200, J721E, J721S2, J784S4 and J742S2 have a
R5F cluster in the MCU domain which is configured for LockStep mode at
the moment. Switch this R5F cluster to Split mode by default in all
corresponding board level DTs to maximize the number of R5F cores.

Corresponding support to shutdown MCU R5F core 1 on SoC power on have
been posted in U-Boot:
https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250522071828.285462-1-b-padhi@ti.com/

While at it, correct the firmware-name property for MCU R5F cores of
J742S2 SoC in [PATCH 1/2].

Testing Done:
1. Tested that each patch does not generate any new warnings/errors.
2. Build test on all existing TI K3 platforms.
3. Tested U-Boot and Linux load of MCU R5F core in split mode on all
applicable boards (AM68-SK, AM69-SK, J7200-EVM, J721E-EVM, J721S2-EVM,
J784S4-evm, J742S2-EVM)

Test logs:
https://gist.github.com/3V3RYONE/ee8e3cb9aa5f4c5c00b059b9c14bfa98

Thanks,
Beleswar

Beleswar Padhi (2):
  arm64: dts: ti: k3-j742s2-mcu-wakeup: Override firmware-name for MCU
    R5F cores
  arm64: dts: ti: k3: Switch MCU R5F cluster to Split-mode

 arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-am68-sk-som.dtsi      |  4 ++++
 arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-am69-sk.dts           |  4 ++++
 arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-j7200-som-p0.dtsi     |  4 ++++
 arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-j721e-sk.dts          |  4 ++++
 arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-j721e-som-p0.dtsi     |  4 ++++
 arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-j721s2-som-p0.dtsi    |  4 ++++
 .../arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-j742s2-mcu-wakeup.dtsi | 17 +++++++++++++++++
 arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-j742s2.dtsi           |  1 +
 .../dts/ti/k3-j784s4-j742s2-evm-common.dtsi     |  4 ++++
 9 files changed, 46 insertions(+)
 create mode 100644 arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-j742s2-mcu-wakeup.dtsi

-- 
2.34.1

[PATCH 1/2] arm64: dts: ti: k3-j742s2-mcu-wakeup: Override firmware-name for MCU R5F cores

[Beleswar Padhi]

The J742S2 SoC reuses the common k3-j784s4-j742s2-mcu-wakeup-common.dtsi
for its MCU domain, but it does not override the firmware-name property
for its R5F cores. This causes the wrong firmware binaries to be
referenced.

Introduce a new k3-j742s2-mcu-wakeup.dtsi file to override the
firmware-name property with correct names for J742s2.

Signed-off-by: Beleswar Padhi <b-padhi@ti.com>
---
 .../arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-j742s2-mcu-wakeup.dtsi | 17 +++++++++++++++++
 arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-j742s2.dtsi           |  1 +
 2 files changed, 18 insertions(+)
 create mode 100644 arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-j742s2-mcu-wakeup.dtsi

diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-j742s2-mcu-wakeup.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-j742s2-mcu-wakeup.dtsi
new file mode 100644
index 000000000000..61db2348d6a4
--- /dev/null
+++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-j742s2-mcu-wakeup.dtsi
@@ -0,0 +1,17 @@
+// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only OR MIT
+/*
+ * Device Tree Source for J742S2 SoC Family
+ *
+ * TRM: https://www.ti.com/lit/pdf/spruje3
+ *
+ * Copyright (C) 2025 Texas Instruments Incorporated - https://www.ti.com/
+ *
+ */
+
+&mcu_r5fss0_core0 {
+	firmware-name = "j742s2-mcu-r5f0_0-fw";
+};
+
+&mcu_r5fss0_core1 {
+	firmware-name = "j742s2-mcu-r5f0_1-fw";
+};
diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-j742s2.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-j742s2.dtsi
index 7a72f82f56d6..d265df1abade 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-j742s2.dtsi
+++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-j742s2.dtsi
@@ -96,3 +96,4 @@ cpu3: cpu@3 {
 };
 
 #include "k3-j742s2-main.dtsi"
+#include "k3-j742s2-mcu-wakeup.dtsi"
-- 
2.34.1

[PATCH 2/2] arm64: dts: ti: k3: Switch MCU R5F cluster to Split-mode

[Beleswar Padhi]

Several TI K3 SoCs like J7200, J721E, J721S2, J784S4 and J742S2 have a
R5F cluster in the MCU domain which is configured for LockStep mode at
the moment. Switch this R5F cluster to Split mode by default in all
corresponding board level DTs to maximize the number of R5F cores.

Signed-off-by: Beleswar Padhi <b-padhi@ti.com>
---
 arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-am68-sk-som.dtsi              | 4 ++++
 arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-am69-sk.dts                   | 4 ++++
 arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-j7200-som-p0.dtsi             | 4 ++++
 arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-j721e-sk.dts                  | 4 ++++
 arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-j721e-som-p0.dtsi             | 4 ++++
 arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-j721s2-som-p0.dtsi            | 4 ++++
 arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-j784s4-j742s2-evm-common.dtsi | 4 ++++
 7 files changed, 28 insertions(+)

diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-am68-sk-som.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-am68-sk-som.dtsi
index 4ca2d4e2fb9b..fe3dc035c067 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-am68-sk-som.dtsi
+++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-am68-sk-som.dtsi
@@ -303,6 +303,10 @@ &mcu_r5fss0_core1 {
 			<&mcu_r5fss0_core1_memory_region>;
 };
 
+&mcu_r5fss0 {
+	ti,cluster-mode = <0>;
+};
+
 &main_r5fss0 {
 	ti,cluster-mode = <0>;
 };
diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-am69-sk.dts b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-am69-sk.dts
index f28375629739..57404882cc89 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-am69-sk.dts
+++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-am69-sk.dts
@@ -992,6 +992,10 @@ &mcu_r5fss0_core1 {
 			<&mcu_r5fss0_core1_memory_region>;
 };
 
+&mcu_r5fss0 {
+	ti,cluster-mode = <0>;
+};
+
 &main_r5fss0 {
 	ti,cluster-mode = <0>;
 };
diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-j7200-som-p0.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-j7200-som-p0.dtsi
index 291ab9bb414d..7c3899d608b8 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-j7200-som-p0.dtsi
+++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-j7200-som-p0.dtsi
@@ -266,6 +266,10 @@ &mcu_r5fss0_core1 {
 			<&mcu_r5fss0_core1_memory_region>;
 };
 
+&mcu_r5fss0 {
+	ti,cluster-mode = <0>;
+};
+
 &main_r5fss0 {
 	ti,cluster-mode = <0>;
 };
diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-j721e-sk.dts b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-j721e-sk.dts
index ffef3d1cfd55..2b26471a9181 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-j721e-sk.dts
+++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-j721e-sk.dts
@@ -1361,6 +1361,10 @@ &mcu_r5fss0_core1 {
 			<&mcu_r5fss0_core1_memory_region>;
 };
 
+&mcu_r5fss0 {
+	ti,cluster-mode = <0>;
+};
+
 &main_r5fss0 {
 	ti,cluster-mode = <0>;
 };
diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-j721e-som-p0.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-j721e-som-p0.dtsi
index 0722f6361cc8..72fd5d39e145 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-j721e-som-p0.dtsi
+++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-j721e-som-p0.dtsi
@@ -566,6 +566,10 @@ &mcu_r5fss0_core1 {
 			<&mcu_r5fss0_core1_memory_region>;
 };
 
+&mcu_r5fss0 {
+	ti,cluster-mode = <0>;
+};
+
 &main_r5fss0 {
 	ti,cluster-mode = <0>;
 };
diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-j721s2-som-p0.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-j721s2-som-p0.dtsi
index 54fc5c4f8c3f..2d420041c0e5 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-j721s2-som-p0.dtsi
+++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-j721s2-som-p0.dtsi
@@ -560,6 +560,10 @@ &mcu_r5fss0_core1 {
 			<&mcu_r5fss0_core1_memory_region>;
 };
 
+&mcu_r5fss0 {
+	ti,cluster-mode = <0>;
+};
+
 &main_r5fss0 {
 	ti,cluster-mode = <0>;
 };
diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-j784s4-j742s2-evm-common.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-j784s4-j742s2-evm-common.dtsi
index fa656b7b13a1..0d45ca9d92e2 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-j784s4-j742s2-evm-common.dtsi
+++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-j784s4-j742s2-evm-common.dtsi
@@ -1122,6 +1122,10 @@ &mcu_r5fss0_core1 {
 			<&mcu_r5fss0_core1_memory_region>;
 };
 
+&mcu_r5fss0 {
+	ti,cluster-mode = <0>;
+};
+
 &main_r5fss0 {
 	ti,cluster-mode = <0>;
 };
-- 
2.34.1

Re: [PATCH 0/2] TI: K3: Switch MCU R5F cluster into Split mode

[Nishanth Menon]

On 13:04-20250522, Beleswar Padhi wrote:
> Several TI K3 SoCs like J7200, J721E, J721S2, J784S4 and J742S2 have a
> R5F cluster in the MCU domain which is configured for LockStep mode at
> the moment. Switch this R5F cluster to Split mode by default in all
> corresponding board level DTs to maximize the number of R5F cores.

Why? I can read the patch to understand what you are trying to do, but
the rationale needs to be explained.

> 
> Corresponding support to shutdown MCU R5F core 1 on SoC power on have
> been posted in U-Boot:
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250522071828.285462-1-b-padhi@ti.com/
> 
> While at it, correct the firmware-name property for MCU R5F cores of
> J742S2 SoC in [PATCH 1/2].
> 
> Testing Done:
> 1. Tested that each patch does not generate any new warnings/errors.
> 2. Build test on all existing TI K3 platforms.
> 3. Tested U-Boot and Linux load of MCU R5F core in split mode on all
> applicable boards (AM68-SK, AM69-SK, J7200-EVM, J721E-EVM, J721S2-EVM,
> J784S4-evm, J742S2-EVM)
> 
> Test logs:
> https://gist.github.com/3V3RYONE/ee8e3cb9aa5f4c5c00b059b9c14bfa98
> 
> Thanks,
> Beleswar
> 
> Beleswar Padhi (2):
>   arm64: dts: ti: k3-j742s2-mcu-wakeup: Override firmware-name for MCU
>     R5F cores
>   arm64: dts: ti: k3: Switch MCU R5F cluster to Split-mode

NAK! We are once again churning downstream users again and for what
reason - coverletter and the patch is vague on that!

I would prefer the entire remote proc dts stuff cleaned up once for all
in a comprehensive series.

Let me be clear (once again): We DO NOT break backward compatibility.
We do not break downstream users without a clear cut rationale. We do
not break all other ecosystems depending on device tree without a very
very solid reason.

-- 
Regards,
Nishanth Menon
Key (0xDDB5849D1736249D) / Fingerprint: F8A2 8693 54EB 8232 17A3  1A34 DDB5 849D 1736 249D

Re: [PATCH 0/2] TI: K3: Switch MCU R5F cluster into Split mode

[Beleswar Prasad Padhi]

Hi Nishanth,

On 5/22/2025 9:23 PM, Nishanth Menon wrote:
> On 13:04-20250522, Beleswar Padhi wrote:
>> Several TI K3 SoCs like J7200, J721E, J721S2, J784S4 and J742S2 have a
>> R5F cluster in the MCU domain which is configured for LockStep mode at
>> the moment. Switch this R5F cluster to Split mode by default in all
>> corresponding board level DTs to maximize the number of R5F cores.
> Why? I can read the patch to understand what you are trying to do, but
> the rationale needs to be explained.


Sure, rationale is lot of users of our SoCs want to control the R5 core 
in the MCU domain as a general purpose remote processor to increase 
performance. That means able to load applications from 
bootloader/kernel/userspace, poweroff/poweron core at runtime etc. The 
challenge with this is the MCU R5F cluster is reserved to run the 
central Device Manager (DM) Firmware.

However, since the MCU R5F cluster is lockstep enabled, it supports both 
lockstep mode and split mode of booting. So here we decide to boot the 
cluster in split mode by which we can reserve the primary core to run DM 
and use the secondary core as a general purpose remote processor.

Now why didn't we do this split mode booting since the inception? Well 
because MCU R5F Cluster is booted by ROM code, and when ROM boots it in 
split mode, it powers on the secondary core and puts it in WFI (as there 
is nothing to do for it yet). But the standard remoteproc drivers in 
Linux and other bootloaders can only load firmware on a core if it is 
powered off/held in reset. So there was some plumbing needed to be done 
at the bootloader stage to actually poweroff the secondary core in split 
mode; so that remoteproc drivers can then load & control the core as 
expected. Now that the plumbing[0] is posted for U-Boot, we can switch 
to split mode booting here in DT.

[0]: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250522071828.285462-1-b-padhi@ti.com/

>
>> Corresponding support to shutdown MCU R5F core 1 on SoC power on have
>> been posted in U-Boot:
>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250522071828.285462-1-b-padhi@ti.com/
>>
>> While at it, correct the firmware-name property for MCU R5F cores of
>> J742S2 SoC in [PATCH 1/2].
>>
>> Testing Done:
>> 1. Tested that each patch does not generate any new warnings/errors.
>> 2. Build test on all existing TI K3 platforms.
>> 3. Tested U-Boot and Linux load of MCU R5F core in split mode on all
>> applicable boards (AM68-SK, AM69-SK, J7200-EVM, J721E-EVM, J721S2-EVM,
>> J784S4-evm, J742S2-EVM)
>>
>> Test logs:
>> https://gist.github.com/3V3RYONE/ee8e3cb9aa5f4c5c00b059b9c14bfa98
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Beleswar
>>
>> Beleswar Padhi (2):
>>    arm64: dts: ti: k3-j742s2-mcu-wakeup: Override firmware-name for MCU
>>      R5F cores
>>    arm64: dts: ti: k3: Switch MCU R5F cluster to Split-mode
> NAK! We are once again churning downstream users again and for what
> reason - coverletter and the patch is vague on that!
>
> I would prefer the entire remote proc dts stuff cleaned up once for all
> in a comprehensive series.
>
> Let me be clear (once again): We DO NOT break backward compatibility.
> We do not break downstream users without a clear cut rationale. We do
> not break all other ecosystems depending on device tree without a very
> very solid reason.


I don't understand how this is breaking any backward compatibility. We 
are not removing the lockstep boot support entirely here. We are just 
switching to Split boot by default because of the usecases. If not 
today, someday we have to go with split mode booting by default.

That's exactly what we did for the MAIN domain R5F clusters: 1. First we 
did the plumbing to have power synchronization between the cores of a 
cluster: 
https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240430105307.1190615-1-b-padhi@ti.com/ 2. 
Then we switched the Cluster to boot in split mode by default: 
https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240826093024.1183540-1-b-padhi@ti.com/

Now, for users who prefer to use the fault-tolerant lockstep mode, they 
can still do that by setting `ti,cluster-mode` property to 1. However, I 
agree that we should not be doing 'hardware configuration' (split vs 
lockstep) in Device Tree which is supposed to be 'hardware description'. 
We have started to explore solutions where we can dictate this lockstep 
vs split core configuration from the firmware itself during runtime. 
Once that is done (long way to go thinking of upstream), we can get rid 
of this configuration from the DT entirely.

Thanks, Beleswar

Re: [PATCH 0/2] TI: K3: Switch MCU R5F cluster into Split mode

[Nishanth Menon]

On 14:27-20250523, Beleswar Prasad Padhi wrote:
> Hi Nishanth,
> 
> On 5/22/2025 9:23 PM, Nishanth Menon wrote:
> > On 13:04-20250522, Beleswar Padhi wrote:
> > > Several TI K3 SoCs like J7200, J721E, J721S2, J784S4 and J742S2 have a
> > > R5F cluster in the MCU domain which is configured for LockStep mode at
> > > the moment. Switch this R5F cluster to Split mode by default in all
> > > corresponding board level DTs to maximize the number of R5F cores.
> > Why? I can read the patch to understand what you are trying to do, but
> > the rationale needs to be explained.
> 
> 
> Sure, rationale is lot of users of our SoCs want to control the R5 core in
> the MCU domain as a general purpose remote processor to increase
> performance. That means able to load applications from

This follows the board, then?

> bootloader/kernel/userspace, poweroff/poweron core at runtime etc. The
> challenge with this is the MCU R5F cluster is reserved to run the central
> Device Manager (DM) Firmware.
> 
> However, since the MCU R5F cluster is lockstep enabled, it supports both
> lockstep mode and split mode of booting. So here we decide to boot the
> cluster in split mode by which we can reserve the primary core to run DM and
> use the secondary core as a general purpose remote processor.
> 
> Now why didn't we do this split mode booting since the inception? Well
> because MCU R5F Cluster is booted by ROM code, and when ROM boots it in
> split mode, it powers on the secondary core and puts it in WFI (as there is
> nothing to do for it yet). But the standard remoteproc drivers in Linux and
> other bootloaders can only load firmware on a core if it is powered off/held
> in reset. So there was some plumbing needed to be done at the bootloader
> stage to actually poweroff the secondary core in split mode; so that
> remoteproc drivers can then load & control the core as expected. Now that
> the plumbing[0] is posted for U-Boot, we can switch to split mode booting
> here in DT.
> 
> [0]: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250522071828.285462-1-b-padhi@ti.com/

In effect, you are saying there are two set of usage models: one in
split and other in lock-step mode. U-Boot support for split mode was
missing and hence was not done yet. The benefit for users is the option
to get an extra processor to do what ever extra stuff they want to do.

> 
> > 
> > > Corresponding support to shutdown MCU R5F core 1 on SoC power on have
> > > been posted in U-Boot:
> > > https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250522071828.285462-1-b-padhi@ti.com/
> > > 
> > > While at it, correct the firmware-name property for MCU R5F cores of
> > > J742S2 SoC in [PATCH 1/2].
> > > 
> > > Testing Done:
> > > 1. Tested that each patch does not generate any new warnings/errors.
> > > 2. Build test on all existing TI K3 platforms.
> > > 3. Tested U-Boot and Linux load of MCU R5F core in split mode on all
> > > applicable boards (AM68-SK, AM69-SK, J7200-EVM, J721E-EVM, J721S2-EVM,
> > > J784S4-evm, J742S2-EVM)
> > > 
> > > Test logs:
> > > https://gist.github.com/3V3RYONE/ee8e3cb9aa5f4c5c00b059b9c14bfa98
> > > 
> > > Thanks,
> > > Beleswar
> > > 
> > > Beleswar Padhi (2):
> > >    arm64: dts: ti: k3-j742s2-mcu-wakeup: Override firmware-name for MCU
> > >      R5F cores
> > >    arm64: dts: ti: k3: Switch MCU R5F cluster to Split-mode
> > NAK! We are once again churning downstream users again and for what
> > reason - coverletter and the patch is vague on that!
> > 
> > I would prefer the entire remote proc dts stuff cleaned up once for all
> > in a comprehensive series.
> > 
> > Let me be clear (once again): We DO NOT break backward compatibility.
> > We do not break downstream users without a clear cut rationale. We do
> > not break all other ecosystems depending on device tree without a very
> > very solid reason.
> 
> 
> I don't understand how this is breaking any backward compatibility. We are
> not removing the lockstep boot support entirely here. We are just switching
> to Split boot by default because of the usecases. If not today, someday we
> have to go with split mode booting by default.
> 
> That's exactly what we did for the MAIN domain R5F clusters: 1. First we did
> the plumbing to have power synchronization between the cores of a cluster:
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240430105307.1190615-1-b-padhi@ti.com/ 2. Then
> we switched the Cluster to boot in split mode by default:
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240826093024.1183540-1-b-padhi@ti.com/
> 
> Now, for users who prefer to use the fault-tolerant lockstep mode, they can
> still do that by setting `ti,cluster-mode` property to 1. However, I agree
> that we should not be doing 'hardware configuration' (split vs lockstep) in
> Device Tree which is supposed to be 'hardware description'. We have started
> to explore solutions where we can dictate this lockstep vs split core
> configuration from the firmware itself during runtime. Once that is done
> (long way to go thinking of upstream), we can get rid of this configuration
> from the DT entirely.

Please add this explanation to your patch. In addition, when you say
arm64: dts: ti: k3*: in subject line (implies you are touch soc dtsi)
and when co-related to the U-boot patch[1], it is confusing to know if
you have the same SoC dtsi change yet to be posted where you switch
from ti,cluster-mode = <1> to <0> - I am concerned if downstream board
dts files will have to consume the firmware names differently. This is
the reason to ask for a comprehensive list of patches for the remote
proc. If a downstream device board dts can continue to move to newer
kernel revisions with no mods, you should state so in your commit
message. There is all kinds of side implications with memory carveouts
etc for a new processor that has to be factored in as well.

Btw, [2] sounds like a bug fix.. So follow the stable kernel rules.

I suggest the following:
* SoC dts files - use a common standard for remote proc - lockstep makes
  sense as it is right now
* Modification to board specific dts files - call them out as board
  files specific patches to flip over to split mode - while considering
  the possibilities that users may NOT upgrade kernel and bootloader at
  the same time and the existence of EFI based dtb handover from
  bootloader to kernel - which means, kernel should be able to handle the
  same combinations correctly. Also handle the carveouts correctly for
  the new processors - at least state the strategy - overlays etc.. Come
  to think of it, I think we should fix up the carveout strategy for
  user programmable remote cores first before attempting all this new
  processor additions.
* Split out the fixes patches separately out - no reason to mix it up
  with the rest of the refactoring.
* Fix your commit messages and subject lines to indicate clearly what is
  impacted, rationale, backward compatibility status

[1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250522071828.285462-7-b-padhi@ti.com/#Z31dts:upstream:src:arm64:ti:k3-j7200-mcu-wakeup.dtsi
[2] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250522073426.329344-2-b-padhi@ti.com/

-- 
Regards,
Nishanth Menon
Key (0xDDB5849D1736249D) / Fingerprint: F8A2 8693 54EB 8232 17A3  1A34 DDB5 849D 1736 249D

Re: [PATCH 0/2] TI: K3: Switch MCU R5F cluster into Split mode

[Andrew Davis]

On 5/23/25 6:48 AM, Nishanth Menon wrote:
> On 14:27-20250523, Beleswar Prasad Padhi wrote:
>> Hi Nishanth,
>>
>> On 5/22/2025 9:23 PM, Nishanth Menon wrote:
>>> On 13:04-20250522, Beleswar Padhi wrote:
>>>> Several TI K3 SoCs like J7200, J721E, J721S2, J784S4 and J742S2 have a
>>>> R5F cluster in the MCU domain which is configured for LockStep mode at
>>>> the moment. Switch this R5F cluster to Split mode by default in all
>>>> corresponding board level DTs to maximize the number of R5F cores.
>>> Why? I can read the patch to understand what you are trying to do, but
>>> the rationale needs to be explained.
>>
>>
>> Sure, rationale is lot of users of our SoCs want to control the R5 core in
>> the MCU domain as a general purpose remote processor to increase
>> performance. That means able to load applications from
> 
> This follows the board, then?
> 
>> bootloader/kernel/userspace, poweroff/poweron core at runtime etc. The
>> challenge with this is the MCU R5F cluster is reserved to run the central
>> Device Manager (DM) Firmware.
>>
>> However, since the MCU R5F cluster is lockstep enabled, it supports both
>> lockstep mode and split mode of booting. So here we decide to boot the
>> cluster in split mode by which we can reserve the primary core to run DM and
>> use the secondary core as a general purpose remote processor.
>>
>> Now why didn't we do this split mode booting since the inception? Well
>> because MCU R5F Cluster is booted by ROM code, and when ROM boots it in
>> split mode, it powers on the secondary core and puts it in WFI (as there is
>> nothing to do for it yet). But the standard remoteproc drivers in Linux and
>> other bootloaders can only load firmware on a core if it is powered off/held
>> in reset. So there was some plumbing needed to be done at the bootloader
>> stage to actually poweroff the secondary core in split mode; so that
>> remoteproc drivers can then load & control the core as expected. Now that
>> the plumbing[0] is posted for U-Boot, we can switch to split mode booting
>> here in DT.
>>
>> [0]: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250522071828.285462-1-b-padhi@ti.com/
> 
> In effect, you are saying there are two set of usage models: one in
> split and other in lock-step mode. U-Boot support for split mode was
> missing and hence was not done yet. The benefit for users is the option
> to get an extra processor to do what ever extra stuff they want to do.
> 
>>
>>>
>>>> Corresponding support to shutdown MCU R5F core 1 on SoC power on have
>>>> been posted in U-Boot:
>>>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250522071828.285462-1-b-padhi@ti.com/
>>>>
>>>> While at it, correct the firmware-name property for MCU R5F cores of
>>>> J742S2 SoC in [PATCH 1/2].
>>>>
>>>> Testing Done:
>>>> 1. Tested that each patch does not generate any new warnings/errors.
>>>> 2. Build test on all existing TI K3 platforms.
>>>> 3. Tested U-Boot and Linux load of MCU R5F core in split mode on all
>>>> applicable boards (AM68-SK, AM69-SK, J7200-EVM, J721E-EVM, J721S2-EVM,
>>>> J784S4-evm, J742S2-EVM)
>>>>
>>>> Test logs:
>>>> https://gist.github.com/3V3RYONE/ee8e3cb9aa5f4c5c00b059b9c14bfa98
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Beleswar
>>>>
>>>> Beleswar Padhi (2):
>>>>     arm64: dts: ti: k3-j742s2-mcu-wakeup: Override firmware-name for MCU
>>>>       R5F cores
>>>>     arm64: dts: ti: k3: Switch MCU R5F cluster to Split-mode
>>> NAK! We are once again churning downstream users again and for what
>>> reason - coverletter and the patch is vague on that!
>>>
>>> I would prefer the entire remote proc dts stuff cleaned up once for all
>>> in a comprehensive series.
>>>
>>> Let me be clear (once again): We DO NOT break backward compatibility.
>>> We do not break downstream users without a clear cut rationale. We do
>>> not break all other ecosystems depending on device tree without a very
>>> very solid reason.
>>
>>
>> I don't understand how this is breaking any backward compatibility. We are
>> not removing the lockstep boot support entirely here. We are just switching
>> to Split boot by default because of the usecases. If not today, someday we
>> have to go with split mode booting by default.
>>
>> That's exactly what we did for the MAIN domain R5F clusters: 1. First we did
>> the plumbing to have power synchronization between the cores of a cluster:
>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240430105307.1190615-1-b-padhi@ti.com/ 2. Then
>> we switched the Cluster to boot in split mode by default:
>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240826093024.1183540-1-b-padhi@ti.com/
>>
>> Now, for users who prefer to use the fault-tolerant lockstep mode, they can
>> still do that by setting `ti,cluster-mode` property to 1. However, I agree
>> that we should not be doing 'hardware configuration' (split vs lockstep) in
>> Device Tree which is supposed to be 'hardware description'. We have started
>> to explore solutions where we can dictate this lockstep vs split core
>> configuration from the firmware itself during runtime. Once that is done
>> (long way to go thinking of upstream), we can get rid of this configuration
>> from the DT entirely.
> 
> Please add this explanation to your patch. In addition, when you say
> arm64: dts: ti: k3*: in subject line (implies you are touch soc dtsi)
> and when co-related to the U-boot patch[1], it is confusing to know if
> you have the same SoC dtsi change yet to be posted where you switch
> from ti,cluster-mode = <1> to <0> - I am concerned if downstream board
> dts files will have to consume the firmware names differently. This is
> the reason to ask for a comprehensive list of patches for the remote
> proc. If a downstream device board dts can continue to move to newer
> kernel revisions with no mods, you should state so in your commit
> message. There is all kinds of side implications with memory carveouts
> etc for a new processor that has to be factored in as well.
> 
> Btw, [2] sounds like a bug fix.. So follow the stable kernel rules.
> 
> I suggest the following:
> * SoC dts files - use a common standard for remote proc - lockstep makes
>    sense as it is right now
> * Modification to board specific dts files - call them out as board
>    files specific patches to flip over to split mode - while considering
>    the possibilities that users may NOT upgrade kernel and bootloader at
>    the same time and the existence of EFI based dtb handover from
>    bootloader to kernel - which means, kernel should be able to handle the
>    same combinations correctly. Also handle the carveouts correctly for
>    the new processors - at least state the strategy - overlays etc.. Come
>    to think of it, I think we should fix up the carveout strategy for
>    user programmable remote cores first before attempting all this new
>    processor additions.

+1

The core issue here is that split vs lockstep is a *configuration*, which
means it doesn't belong in DT in the first place. This is the reason to keep
config out of DT, why should what mode my R5 core starts in be based on what
board I'm using? It hard-codes what should be configurable decisions.

Same issue with carveouts, so IMHO all of the: carveouts, mailbox selection,
timer reserved status, and mode selection belong in an overlay. It doesn't
fix the issues, but at least it isolates it.

Andrew

> * Split out the fixes patches separately out - no reason to mix it up
>    with the rest of the refactoring.
> * Fix your commit messages and subject lines to indicate clearly what is
>    impacted, rationale, backward compatibility status
> 
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250522071828.285462-7-b-padhi@ti.com/#Z31dts:upstream:src:arm64:ti:k3-j7200-mcu-wakeup.dtsi
> [2] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250522073426.329344-2-b-padhi@ti.com/
> 

Re: [PATCH 0/2] TI: K3: Switch MCU R5F cluster into Split mode

[Kumar, Udit]

On 5/23/2025 6:46 PM, Andrew Davis wrote:
> On 5/23/25 6:48 AM, Nishanth Menon wrote:
>> On 14:27-20250523, Beleswar Prasad Padhi wrote:
>>> Hi Nishanth,
>>>
>>> On 5/22/2025 9:23 PM, Nishanth Menon wrote:
>>>> On 13:04-20250522, Beleswar Padhi wrote:
>>>>> Several TI K3 SoCs like J7200, J721E, J721S2, J784S4 and J742S2 
>>>>> have a
>>>>> R5F cluster in the MCU domain which is configured for LockStep 
>>>>> mode at
>>>>> the moment. Switch this R5F cluster to Split mode by default in all
>>>>> corresponding board level DTs to maximize the number of R5F cores.
>>>> Why? I can read the patch to understand what you are trying to do, but
>>>> the rationale needs to be explained.
>>>
>>>
>>> [..]
>> I suggest the following:
>> * SoC dts files - use a common standard for remote proc - lockstep makes
>>    sense as it is right now
>> * Modification to board specific dts files - call them out as board
>>    files specific patches to flip over to split mode - while considering
>>    the possibilities that users may NOT upgrade kernel and bootloader at
>>    the same time and the existence of EFI based dtb handover from
>>    bootloader to kernel - which means, kernel should be able to 
>> handle the
>>    same combinations correctly. Also handle the carveouts correctly for
>>    the new processors - at least state the strategy - overlays etc.. 
>> Come
>>    to think of it, I think we should fix up the carveout strategy for
>>    user programmable remote cores first before attempting all this new
>>    processor additions.
>
> +1
>
> The core issue here is that split vs lockstep is a *configuration*, which
> means it doesn't belong in DT in the first place. This is the reason 
> to keep
> config out of DT, why should what mode my R5 core starts in be based 
> on what
> board I'm using? It hard-codes what should be configurable decisions.

configurable decisions is bootloader build .

and you know what you are building then change DT as well.


>
> Same issue with carveouts, so IMHO all of the: carveouts, mailbox 
> selection,
> timer reserved status, and mode selection belong in an overlay. It 
> doesn't
> fix the issues, but at least it isolates it.
>
Its usage model, and split mode is enabled at board level.

as default, split mode is used, in case lock-step is needed then change 
DT in custom build too.


Also, Patch 1/2 should be posted as different patch.


> Andrew
>
>> * Split out the fixes patches separately out - no reason to mix it up
>>    with the rest of the refactoring.
>> * Fix your commit messages and subject lines to indicate clearly what is
>>    impacted, rationale, backward compatibility status
>>
>> [1] 
>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250522071828.285462-7-b-padhi@ti.com/#Z31dts:upstream:src:arm64:ti:k3-j7200-mcu-wakeup.dtsi
>> [2] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250522073426.329344-2-b-padhi@ti.com/
>>

Re: [PATCH 0/2] TI: K3: Switch MCU R5F cluster into Split mode

[Beleswar Prasad Padhi]

Hi Nishanth,

On 5/23/2025 5:18 PM, Nishanth Menon wrote:
> On 14:27-20250523, Beleswar Prasad Padhi wrote:
>> Hi Nishanth,
>>
>> On 5/22/2025 9:23 PM, Nishanth Menon wrote:
>>> On 13:04-20250522, Beleswar Padhi wrote:
>>>> Several TI K3 SoCs like J7200, J721E, J721S2, J784S4 and J742S2 have a
>>>> R5F cluster in the MCU domain which is configured for LockStep mode at
>>>> the moment. Switch this R5F cluster to Split mode by default in all
>>>> corresponding board level DTs to maximize the number of R5F cores.
>>> Why? I can read the patch to understand what you are trying to do, but
>>> the rationale needs to be explained.
>>
>> Sure, rationale is lot of users of our SoCs want to control the R5 core in
>> the MCU domain as a general purpose remote processor to increase
>> performance. That means able to load applications from
> This follows the board, then?
>
>> bootloader/kernel/userspace, poweroff/poweron core at runtime etc. The
>> challenge with this is the MCU R5F cluster is reserved to run the central
>> Device Manager (DM) Firmware.
>>
>> However, since the MCU R5F cluster is lockstep enabled, it supports both
>> lockstep mode and split mode of booting. So here we decide to boot the
>> cluster in split mode by which we can reserve the primary core to run DM and
>> use the secondary core as a general purpose remote processor.
>>
>> Now why didn't we do this split mode booting since the inception? Well
>> because MCU R5F Cluster is booted by ROM code, and when ROM boots it in
>> split mode, it powers on the secondary core and puts it in WFI (as there is
>> nothing to do for it yet). But the standard remoteproc drivers in Linux and
>> other bootloaders can only load firmware on a core if it is powered off/held
>> in reset. So there was some plumbing needed to be done at the bootloader
>> stage to actually poweroff the secondary core in split mode; so that
>> remoteproc drivers can then load & control the core as expected. Now that
>> the plumbing[0] is posted for U-Boot, we can switch to split mode booting
>> here in DT.
>>
>> [0]: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250522071828.285462-1-b-padhi@ti.com/
> In effect, you are saying there are two set of usage models: one in
> split and other in lock-step mode. U-Boot support for split mode was
> missing and hence was not done yet. The benefit for users is the option
> to get an extra processor to do what ever extra stuff they want to do.


Yes...

>
>>>> Corresponding support to shutdown MCU R5F core 1 on SoC power on have
>>>> been posted in U-Boot:
>>>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250522071828.285462-1-b-padhi@ti.com/
>>>>
>>>> While at it, correct the firmware-name property for MCU R5F cores of
>>>> J742S2 SoC in [PATCH 1/2].
>>>>
>>>> Testing Done:
>>>> 1. Tested that each patch does not generate any new warnings/errors.
>>>> 2. Build test on all existing TI K3 platforms.
>>>> 3. Tested U-Boot and Linux load of MCU R5F core in split mode on all
>>>> applicable boards (AM68-SK, AM69-SK, J7200-EVM, J721E-EVM, J721S2-EVM,
>>>> J784S4-evm, J742S2-EVM)
>>>>
>>>> Test logs:
>>>> https://gist.github.com/3V3RYONE/ee8e3cb9aa5f4c5c00b059b9c14bfa98
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Beleswar
>>>>
>>>> Beleswar Padhi (2):
>>>>     arm64: dts: ti: k3-j742s2-mcu-wakeup: Override firmware-name for MCU
>>>>       R5F cores
>>>>     arm64: dts: ti: k3: Switch MCU R5F cluster to Split-mode
>>> NAK! We are once again churning downstream users again and for what
>>> reason - coverletter and the patch is vague on that!
>>>
>>> I would prefer the entire remote proc dts stuff cleaned up once for all
>>> in a comprehensive series.
>>>
>>> Let me be clear (once again): We DO NOT break backward compatibility.
>>> We do not break downstream users without a clear cut rationale. We do
>>> not break all other ecosystems depending on device tree without a very
>>> very solid reason.
>>
>> I don't understand how this is breaking any backward compatibility. We are
>> not removing the lockstep boot support entirely here. We are just switching
>> to Split boot by default because of the usecases. If not today, someday we
>> have to go with split mode booting by default.
>>
>> That's exactly what we did for the MAIN domain R5F clusters: 1. First we did
>> the plumbing to have power synchronization between the cores of a cluster:
>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240430105307.1190615-1-b-padhi@ti.com/ 2. Then
>> we switched the Cluster to boot in split mode by default:
>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240826093024.1183540-1-b-padhi@ti.com/
>>
>> Now, for users who prefer to use the fault-tolerant lockstep mode, they can
>> still do that by setting `ti,cluster-mode` property to 1. However, I agree
>> that we should not be doing 'hardware configuration' (split vs lockstep) in
>> Device Tree which is supposed to be 'hardware description'. We have started
>> to explore solutions where we can dictate this lockstep vs split core
>> configuration from the firmware itself during runtime. Once that is done
>> (long way to go thinking of upstream), we can get rid of this configuration
>> from the DT entirely.
> Please add this explanation to your patch. In addition, when you say
> arm64: dts: ti: k3*: in subject line (implies you are touch soc dtsi)
> and when co-related to the U-boot patch[1], it is confusing to know if
> you have the same SoC dtsi change yet to be posted where you switch
> from ti,cluster-mode = <1> to <0> - I am concerned if downstream board
> dts files will have to consume the firmware names differently.


firmware names should not be a problem. If downstream users decide to 
boot with lockstep as default, in effect there will be only one 
processor, and the primary firmware will be loaded into the CPU.

> This is
> the reason to ask for a comprehensive list of patches for the remote
> proc. If a downstream device board dts can continue to move to newer
> kernel revisions with no mods, you should state so in your commit
> message.


Other than ti,cluster-mode, no mods...

> There is all kinds of side implications with memory carveouts
> etc for a new processor that has to be factored in as well.
>
> Btw, [2] sounds like a bug fix.. So follow the stable kernel rules.


It is a fix, but not so critical that it should be backported to stable 
Kernels. That's because:

a. The primary core's firmware-name/path does not matter in DT here, as 
it is packed in the bootloader images and that core can not be loaded 
from anywhere else (DM core).
b. The support to boot this cluster in Split mode has just been posted 
now. So users might not be able to load/boot the secondary core before 
this support.

So I think fixing it in mainline is good enough as the support is also 
added now. Do you think we should add Fixes tag here?

>
> I suggest the following:
> * SoC dts files - use a common standard for remote proc - lockstep makes
>    sense as it is right now
> * Modification to board specific dts files - call them out as board
>    files specific patches to flip over to split mode - while considering
>    the possibilities that users may NOT upgrade kernel and bootloader at
>    the same time and the existence of EFI based dtb handover from
>    bootloader to kernel - which means, kernel should be able to handle the
>    same combinations correctly.


The Kernel remoteproc driver handles that correctly by checking the CPU 
registers to see if it is in split mode[3]. If the bootloader was not 
able to boot this cluster in split mode, but the Kernel/bootloader DT 
says "ti,cluster-mode = 0", the driver forces it to boot in lockstep mode.

>   Also handle the carveouts correctly for
>    the new processors - at least state the strategy - overlays etc.. Come
>    to think of it, I think we should fix up the carveout strategy for
>    user programmable remote cores first before attempting all this new
>    processor additions.


This is not really a new processor, its just a split CPU. As such we 
already have the carveouts for this split CPU upstreamed[4].

Do you want to see new overlays (containing mailbox configuration, timer 
configuration, mem carveouts) for each of the board? Because each board 
has a separate set of configuration for IPC.

> * Split out the fixes patches separately out - no reason to mix it up
>    with the rest of the refactoring.


This was a minor fix, and it essentially was only needed when we added 
split support for all SoCs, so I clubbed them together...

> * Fix your commit messages and subject lines to indicate clearly what is
>    impacted, rationale, backward compatibility status
>
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250522071828.285462-7-b-padhi@ti.com/#Z31dts:upstream:src:arm64:ti:k3-j7200-mcu-wakeup.dtsi
> [2] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250522073426.329344-2-b-padhi@ti.com/

[3]: 
https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/master/drivers/remoteproc/ti_k3_r5_remoteproc.c#L1153 
[4]: 
https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/master/arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-j784s4-j742s2-evm-common.dtsi#L47-L57

Thanks, Beleswar