From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-pf1-f170.google.com (mail-pf1-f170.google.com [209.85.210.170]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B260C32FA30 for ; Tue, 28 Apr 2026 14:30:28 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.210.170 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1777386630; cv=none; b=VtGMQ00oHwXK3uHhd3NidbpB9MSQ/vag7A/HLHm0iTNjRizjE4HwLbBXEBE6P6VSNgDID4hz/DkyV8jKNori4oGOJ1220GUTsW3vOx8DK7cH3r/eqvTjPiQVQsDkQKv3iQclcGE6VYax4JhOuLJtrB9N5+w3ERPtwURGASLmix8= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1777386630; c=relaxed/simple; bh=vCd2e6Uhd7ifWZ+XC5Z2X16HZ/PXYwWVNNFQyVtgYZQ=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=TnhS5dVRL0b29DYk9eC7+MYA/QRZ+W220iAx1MnVD9jgql/526w7VPYc38QsAHPQzyTnn8eWbNaGty/6cVmXmyknsVLD02a7Yk9lViuprRald+apPvhKhh12+sfYz7ilOvaZIEEPV/Z8rIU8VhOzoipvUuLE5Ik3cbpT6GgV5HE= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linaro.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linaro.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=linaro.org header.i=@linaro.org header.b=ErYNFNbv; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.210.170 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linaro.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linaro.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=linaro.org header.i=@linaro.org header.b="ErYNFNbv" Received: by mail-pf1-f170.google.com with SMTP id d2e1a72fcca58-82f943870baso4843134b3a.1 for ; Tue, 28 Apr 2026 07:30:28 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linaro.org; s=google; t=1777386628; x=1777991428; darn=vger.kernel.org; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:from:date:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=FsYz9EF0cuVmErnqDejVSwtFx0hR3j24m1rjRwretrw=; b=ErYNFNbv28BIE6wwTFhPCytJOv1O5iz+mL7c+AjL42dw/M4M4P86Qc3PrKB2jvX+43 bjZbuZYNio6ODA0R1s7ySls6EI3DwqyzBxUOEBNJhRr/GlZjTrJMN0iAaFQgZJS/T4/8 7qSmask1XfKzt1H6anSrqeEY5Kn7U0LOWaeck6aijVuf5S1RasCjA3ffTccMdwIzefVG zratigG5BW/YAI/G6q1tSFXz5tHPvQP1CROGiWzPolID/ZVvb6pQ33mW4J9xiJBfNQCj AWuQmb5RvrZ5j/aVBIvI/oZRhRrQu0SdAqwGyue3YIdE7ZVEg8R1ObJ4YUeJQScvzEc/ kfUw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20251104; t=1777386628; x=1777991428; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:from:date:x-gm-gg:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=FsYz9EF0cuVmErnqDejVSwtFx0hR3j24m1rjRwretrw=; b=RZSygyNz2ScP24wkeV3Ap0l+ZtYwIlbeRvZfj+G3g6dRdNhJDsPxQ2icqi4fM5V6JZ waJuVNBPObAojeQMInJuamVJrSbQ4rn49qmcr9l3kktT/QS2EOUnqXKBa3X+0DI9SIvW JLyPbTkgKLKJhcZ3jDt0SKyxDlilTg4PHXzfJxnl89K9STJMS5lXO9GAXeH7W5G70fT8 BVxI0P5LPfJjXGDWxXXAUhOiZ6udt2YwE5DNzfa3e9MXurv1VTK3C5g1LtbRBcT4f+9X 1rv95oSanZv8/LHT1b1Z7KqYFAmgLWmEWCiZqH60bKb7ve9YR/ajaI1yjrUFd+/Brcz6 1rRA== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AFNElJ90d3XIlKMx+WF7N2DY19L6fqkHT5aNEiDGDUu5JHm7enE/wAfrmEFND70s7iVIu00LK5S0Pzf7plF1@vger.kernel.org X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YzC23pmufLkkUYy/tc2sRXhfyyx7QP7lNqQIS80Nqw+o1FdPEP0 LpGqWmQWeqvCJYuJonxcuiSq6p7ENxfhwONegIGFRT3Keil9ZjunmnWAtfhvyX5t9+w= X-Gm-Gg: AeBDievJl7Y0veKdMIwzKL74f9iKFn1oh59ZRuaxKb27N7Z4TiAhb1gzBBqWK3NYeWi ctpluZ7FUidXuEj4mn0mbE1r4Zr5JjCa9mWDbf7JIJVWDE56k7C+QiiYYWwHaYH6OWP5MQSAFG8 uBbKB4PmMqAOSGprrUmDuwrq1ZsDDQrgNtfFXRVfAA+U+ttOyBW2eaxmXWl7LbDmzs5VPd18lDG U3+amSVVIkLMD0rYRtIBe9y+wnQRgSizPB/wk6pdCT1oU16S2BIqtRLy0wsQsTU4BHz78jlolFl Y6c1zz+sG01GdLAGm+eEwI1yVFA56J/fXPbDp3f7n0vgC76VYoQ0kyIXcqjXT7VoDQXxnKltqUu TThuX9dPZ3nlA4AypWLlM/cIFLS32w+MOX2nGK5/rK7qif4E6J80oFaJhDPVc0S4RPebMUMw9UK t6XpG3o1sQ2mby4BhXRIENwDqpQMeD5EI1Mmem5uT6pECmc0Oe X-Received: by 2002:a05:6a00:1885:b0:831:7627:4ab7 with SMTP id d2e1a72fcca58-834ddc145f7mr3744150b3a.29.1777386627662; Tue, 28 Apr 2026 07:30:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from p14s ([2604:3d09:148c:c800:a4ee:17e1:59a1:f1e1]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id d2e1a72fcca58-834daf826eesm3066074b3a.61.2026.04.28.07.30.26 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Tue, 28 Apr 2026 07:30:27 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2026 08:30:24 -0600 From: Mathieu Poirier To: tanmay.shah@amd.com Cc: Krzysztof Kozlowski , andersson@kernel.org, robh@kernel.org, krzk+dt@kernel.org, conor+dt@kernel.org, michal.simek@amd.com, ben.levinsky@amd.com, linux-remoteproc@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] dt-bindings: remoteproc: xlnx: add auto boot feature Message-ID: References: <20260422202558.2362971-1-tanmay.shah@amd.com> <20260422202558.2362971-2-tanmay.shah@amd.com> <20260423-stimulating-markhor-of-masquerade-aac0a7@quoll> <2351c698-cf08-4037-9777-0820448a14d8@amd.com> <67f442f7-377d-46f3-82bc-86053e34c277@kernel.org> <09928c66-f041-479d-954f-56dcfcfa1c13@amd.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: devicetree@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <09928c66-f041-479d-954f-56dcfcfa1c13@amd.com> On Fri, Apr 24, 2026 at 12:52:40PM -0500, Shah, Tanmay wrote: > > > On 4/24/2026 11:53 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > > On 23/04/2026 19:59, Shah, Tanmay wrote: > >> Ack, I will rename it to xlnx,auto-boot. > >> > >>>> > >>>>>> + type: boolean > >>>>>> + description: remote core is either already running or ready to boot > >>>>> > >>>>> And why is this property of a board? > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> Not sure what indicates it is? The property is under remoteproc child > >>>> device that is SOC level property. Remote core is on same SOC wher linux > >>>> core is running. > >>> > >>> So it is implied by SoC compatible? Please provide some arguments why it > >>> cannot be implied by the SoC compatible. I gave you one way out, but if > >>> you disagree then no problem. > >>> > >> > >> So on some SoC, the bootloader supports loading and starting of the > >> remote processor. But it is totally user's choice. User can choose to > >> load & start one core of a cluster via bootloader and leave another core > >> powered-off. > >> That is why it is not possible to decide based on SoC compatible. > > > > OK. The problem is that "user" is a bit vague and usually user choice > > goes to user-space. > > > > The property will be set or unset for ALL of given boards. So all of the > > DTS->DTB. That's why it should be clear why all such boards should > > behave like you described. If this is truly user, as in user-space, > > choice, then DT is not the way. > > > > Okay 'user' may not be the right choice of word. I should say 'hardware > configuration'. On same SoC, some cores can be configured to boot > automatically before Linux boots, and some won't. So if device-tree is > about hardware configuration, then we need a way to show which core is > configured to boot before linux. This configuration is board agnostic. > So I think auto-boot in device-tree makes sense. > > The only advantage on this platform is, it has a way to detect if the > core is running or not runtime and don't have to rely on device-tree. > > > > >> > >> If we don't want to make it a device-tree property then I can implement > >> in a different way. New way will detect if the remote is running or not > >> via EMMI/SCMI call to the firmware, and take a decision based on that. > >> If this new way works, then I don't think we need auto-boot property at all. > >> > >> Let me know your thoughts. > > > > This works for me and solves my questions from DT point of view, but I > > cannot judge whether this makes sense for you. > > > > I say I will keep it open ended for now. I will avoid introducing > auto-boot in the device-tree for now, and send a patch without it. In > future if for some other reason this property is needed, will send new > patch later. > In light of this conversation, should I still review this patchset or it was made obsolete by "[PATCH] remoteproc: xlnx: check remote node state" ? > Thanks, > Tanmay > > > > > Best regards, > > Krzysztof >