Re: [PATCH V5 6/8] remoteproc: imx_rproc: support i.MX8MQ/M

Mathieu Poirier
2021-01-11T21:41:01Z

On Tue, Dec 29, 2020 at 11:30:17AM +0800, peng.fan@nxp.com wrote:
> From: Peng Fan <peng.fan@nxp.com>
>
> Add i.MX8MQ dev/sys addr map and configuration data structure
> i.MX8MM share i.MX8MQ settings.
>
> Reviewed-by: Richard Zhu <hongxing.zhu@nxp.com>
> Signed-off-by: Peng Fan <peng.fan@nxp.com>
> Reviewed-by: Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@linaro.org>
> ---
> drivers/remoteproc/imx_rproc.c | 39 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 39 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/imx_rproc.c b/drivers/remoteproc/imx_rproc.c
> index 3c0075dc1787..f80428afb8a7 100644
> --- a/drivers/remoteproc/imx_rproc.c
> +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/imx_rproc.c
> @@ -88,6 +88,34 @@ struct imx_rproc {
> struct clk *clk;
> };
>
> +static const struct imx_rproc_att imx_rproc_att_imx8mq[] = {
> + /* dev addr , sys addr , size , flags */
> + /* TCML - alias */
> + { 0x00000000, 0x007e0000, 0x00020000, 0 },
> + /* OCRAM_S */
> + { 0x00180000, 0x00180000, 0x00008000, 0 },
> + /* OCRAM */
> + { 0x00900000, 0x00900000, 0x00020000, 0 },
> + /* OCRAM */
> + { 0x00920000, 0x00920000, 0x00020000, 0 },
> + /* QSPI Code - alias */
> + { 0x08000000, 0x08000000, 0x08000000, 0 },
> + /* DDR (Code) - alias */
> + { 0x10000000, 0x80000000, 0x0FFE0000, 0 },
> + /* TCML */
> + { 0x1FFE0000, 0x007E0000, 0x00020000, ATT_OWN },
> + /* TCMU */
> + { 0x20000000, 0x00800000, 0x00020000, ATT_OWN },
> + /* OCRAM_S */
> + { 0x20180000, 0x00180000, 0x00008000, ATT_OWN },
> + /* OCRAM */
> + { 0x20200000, 0x00900000, 0x00020000, ATT_OWN },
> + /* OCRAM */
> + { 0x20220000, 0x00920000, 0x00020000, ATT_OWN },
> + /* DDR (Data) */
> + { 0x40000000, 0x40000000, 0x80000000, 0 },
> +};
> +
> static const struct imx_rproc_att imx_rproc_att_imx7d[] = {
> /* dev addr , sys addr , size , flags */
> /* OCRAM_S (M4 Boot code) - alias */
> @@ -138,6 +166,15 @@ static const struct imx_rproc_att imx_rproc_att_imx6sx[] = {
> { 0x80000000, 0x80000000, 0x60000000, 0 },
> };
>
> +static const struct imx_rproc_dcfg imx_rproc_cfg_imx8mq = {
> + .src_reg = IMX7D_SRC_SCR,
> + .src_mask = IMX7D_M4_RST_MASK,
> + .src_start = IMX7D_M4_START,
> + .src_stop = IMX7D_M4_STOP,
> + .att = imx_rproc_att_imx8mq,
> + .att_size = ARRAY_SIZE(imx_rproc_att_imx8mq),
> +};
> +
> static const struct imx_rproc_dcfg imx_rproc_cfg_imx7d = {
> .src_reg = IMX7D_SRC_SCR,
> .src_mask = IMX7D_M4_RST_MASK,
> @@ -496,6 +533,8 @@ static int imx_rproc_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
> static const struct of_device_id imx_rproc_of_match[] = {
> { .compatible = "fsl,imx7d-cm4", .data = &imx_rproc_cfg_imx7d },
> { .compatible = "fsl,imx6sx-cm4", .data = &imx_rproc_cfg_imx6sx },
> + { .compatible = "fsl,imx8mq-cm4", .data = &imx_rproc_cfg_imx8mq },
> + { .compatible = "fsl,imx8mm-cm4", .data = &imx_rproc_cfg_imx8mq },

I don't see a patch that adds those to the imx-rproc.txt bindings document. As far
as I can tell the patch that does that was part of your first patchset [1] but
was not resubmitted after that.

It would be very nice to have an example of how the DT is laid out for those 2
platform, otherwise I have to guess based on the code I am reviewing.

[1]. https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-remoteproc/patch/20200724080813.24884-2-peng.fan@nxp.com/

> {},
> };
> MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, imx_rproc_of_match);
> --
> 2.28.0
>