Re: [PATCH] remoteproc: xlnx: allow single core use in split mode

[Tanmay Shah <tanmay.shah@amd.com>]

Hello,

Thanks for your reviews.

On 6/9/25 8:10 PM, Peng Fan wrote:
>> Subject: [PATCH] remoteproc: xlnx: allow single core use in split mode
>>
>> It's a valid use case to have only one core enabled in cluster in split
>> mode. Remove exact core count expecatation from the driver.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Tanmay Shah <tanmay.shah@amd.com>
>> ---
>>   drivers/remoteproc/xlnx_r5_remoteproc.c | 3 ---
>>   1 file changed, 3 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/xlnx_r5_remoteproc.c
>> b/drivers/remoteproc/xlnx_r5_remoteproc.c
>> index 1af89782e116..f314dd5bdb26 100644
>> --- a/drivers/remoteproc/xlnx_r5_remoteproc.c
>> +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/xlnx_r5_remoteproc.c
>> @@ -1339,9 +1339,6 @@ static int zynqmp_r5_cluster_init(struct
>> zynqmp_r5_cluster *cluster)
>>   	if (core_count == 0) {
> 
> "if ((count == 0 || (count > 2))"
> should be used to here.
> 

That's a fair ask. I will fix it.

>>   		dev_err(dev, "Invalid number of r5 cores %d",
>> core_count);
>>   		return -EINVAL;
>> -	} else if (cluster_mode == SPLIT_MODE && core_count != 2) {
>> -		dev_err(dev, "Invalid number of r5 cores for split
>> mode\n");
>> -		return -EINVAL;
> 
> 
> Then it is safe to drop this code piece, otherwise if hacked devicetree
> being used with 3 r5 cores included, things will go wrong.
> 
> Regards,
> Peng
>>   	} else if (cluster_mode == LOCKSTEP_MODE && core_count ==
>> 2) {
>>   		dev_warn(dev, "Only r5 core0 will be used\n");
>>   		core_count = 1;
>>
>> base-commit: dc8417021bcd01914a416bf8bab811a6c5e7d99a
>> --
>> 2.34.1
>>
>