Re: [PATCH 2/3] dt-bindings: remoteproc: add Versal-NET platform

Krzysztof Kozlowski
2024-03-21T07:39:42Z

On 20/03/2024 16:14, Tanmay Shah wrote:
>
>
> On 3/20/24 2:40 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 19/03/2024 15:42, Tanmay Shah wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 3/19/24 12:30 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>> On 19/03/2024 01:51, Tanmay Shah wrote:
>>>>> Hello Krzysztof,
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for reviews. Please find my comments below.
>>>>>
>>>>> On 3/17/24 1:53 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>>>> On 15/03/2024 22:15, Tanmay Shah wrote:
>>>>>>> AMD-Xilinx Versal-NET platform is successor of Versal platform. It
>>>>>>> contains multiple clusters of cortex-R52 real-time processing units.
>>>>>>> Each cluster contains two cores of cortex-R52 processors. Each cluster
>>>>>>> can be configured in lockstep mode or split mode.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Each R52 core is assigned 128KB of TCM memory. ATCM memory is 64KB, BTCM
>>>>>>> and CTCM memoreis are 32KB each. Each TCM memory has its own dedicated
>>>>>>> power-domain that needs to be requested before using it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Tanmay Shah <tanmay.shah@amd.com>
>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>> .../remoteproc/xlnx,zynqmp-r5fss.yaml | 220 +++++++++++++++---
>>>>>>> 1 file changed, 184 insertions(+), 36 deletions(-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/remoteproc/xlnx,zynqmp-r5fss.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/remoteproc/xlnx,zynqmp-r5fss.yaml
>>>>>>> index 711da0272250..55654ee02eef 100644
>>>>>>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/remoteproc/xlnx,zynqmp-r5fss.yaml
>>>>>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/remoteproc/xlnx,zynqmp-r5fss.yaml
>>>>>>> @@ -18,7 +18,9 @@ description: |
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> properties:
>>>>>>> compatible:
>>>>>>> - const: xlnx,zynqmp-r5fss
>>>>>>> + enum:
>>>>>>> + - xlnx,zynqmp-r5fss
>>>>>>> + - xlnx,versal-net-r52fss
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "#address-cells":
>>>>>>> const: 2
>>>>>>> @@ -64,7 +66,9 @@ patternProperties:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> properties:
>>>>>>> compatible:
>>>>>>> - const: xlnx,zynqmp-r5f
>>>>>>> + enum:
>>>>>>> + - xlnx,zynqmp-r5f
>>>>>>> + - xlnx,versal-net-r52f
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> reg:
>>>>>>> minItems: 1
>>>>>>> @@ -135,9 +139,11 @@ required:
>>>>>>> allOf:
>>>>>>> - if:
>>>>>>> properties:
>>>>>>> - xlnx,cluster-mode:
>>>>>>> - enum:
>>>>>>> - - 1
>>>>>>> + compatible:
>>>>>>> + contains:
>>>>>>> + enum:
>>>>>>> + - xlnx,versal-net-r52fss
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why do you touch these lines?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> then:
>>>>>>> patternProperties:
>>>>>>> "^r5f@[0-9a-f]+$":
>>>>>>> @@ -149,16 +155,14 @@ allOf:
>>>>>>> items:
>>>>>>> - description: ATCM internal memory
>>>>>>> - description: BTCM internal memory
>>>>>>> - - description: extra ATCM memory in lockstep mode
>>>>>>> - - description: extra BTCM memory in lockstep mode
>>>>>>> + - description: CTCM internal memory
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> reg-names:
>>>>>>> minItems: 1
>>>>>>> items:
>>>>>>> - - const: atcm0
>>>>>>> - - const: btcm0
>>>>>>> - - const: atcm1
>>>>>>> - - const: btcm1
>>>>>>> + - const: atcm
>>>>>>> + - const: btcm
>>>>>>> + - const: ctcm
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> power-domains:
>>>>>>> minItems: 2
>>>>>>> @@ -166,33 +170,70 @@ allOf:
>>>>>>> - description: RPU core power domain
>>>>>>> - description: ATCM power domain
>>>>>>> - description: BTCM power domain
>>>>>>> - - description: second ATCM power domain
>>>>>>> - - description: second BTCM power domain
>>>>>>> + - description: CTCM power domain
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> else:
>>>>>>> - patternProperties:
>>>>>>> - "^r5f@[0-9a-f]+$":
>>>>>>> - type: object
>>>>>>> -
>>>>>>> - properties:
>>>>>>> - reg:
>>>>>>> - minItems: 1
>>>>>>> - items:
>>>>>>> - - description: ATCM internal memory
>>>>>>> - - description: BTCM internal memory
>>>>>>> -
>>>>>>> - reg-names:
>>>>>>> - minItems: 1
>>>>>>> - items:
>>>>>>> - - const: atcm0
>>>>>>> - - const: btcm0
>>>>>>> -
>>>>>>> - power-domains:
>>>>>>> - minItems: 2
>>>>>>> - items:
>>>>>>> - - description: RPU core power domain
>>>>>>> - - description: ATCM power domain
>>>>>>> - - description: BTCM power domain
>>>>>>> + allOf:
>>>>>>> + - if:
>>>>>>> + properties:
>>>>>>> + xlnx,cluster-mode:
>>>>>>> + enum:
>>>>>>> + - 1
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Whatever you did here, is not really readable. You have now multiple
>>>>>> if:then:if:then embedded.
>>>>>
>>>>> For ZynqMP platform, TCM can be configured differently in lockstep mode
>>>>> and split mode.
>>>>>
>>>>> For Versal-NET no such configuration is available, but new CTCM memory
>>>>> is added.
>>>>>
>>>>> So, I am trying to achieve following representation of TCM for both:
>>>>>
>>>>> if: versal-net compatible
>>>>> then:
>>>>> ATCM - 64KB
>>>>> BTCM - 32KB
>>>>> CTCM - 32KB
>>>>>
>>>>> else: (ZynqMP compatible)
>>>>> if:
>>>>> xlnx,cluster-mode (lockstep mode)
>>>>> then:
>>>>> ATCM0 - 64KB
>>>>> BTCM0 - 64KB
>>>>> ATCM1 - 64KB
>>>>> BTCM1 - 64KB
>>>>> else: (split mode)
>>>>> ATCM0 - 64KB
>>>>> BTCM0 - 64KB
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> If bindings are getting complicated, does it make sense to introduce
>>>>> new file for Versal-NET bindings? Let me know how you would like me
>>>>> to proceed.
>>>>
>>>> All this is broken in your previous patchset, but now we nicely see.
>>>>
>>>> No, this does not work like this. You do not have entirely different
>>>> programming models in one device, don't you?
>>>>
>>>
>>> I don't understand what do you mean? Programming model is same. Only number
>>> of TCMs are changing based on configuration and platform. I can certainly
>>> list different compatible for different platforms as requested. But other than
>>> that not sure what needs to be fixed.
>>
>> You cannot have same programming model with different memory mappings.
>> Anyway, please follow writing bindings rules: all of your different
>> devices must have dedicated compatible. I really though we talked about
>> two IPs on same SoC...
>
> I agree that Versal compatible should be added, I will do that in next revision.
>
> For ZynqMP case, it is two IPs on same SOC. In lockstep mode and split mode,
> same SOC is configuring TCM differently.
>
> How this should be resolved for Versal-NET ? Driver avoids such TCM configuration
> for Versal-NET.

Binding should describe the hardware, not what driver is doing
currently, so the question is: does your device have such properties or
not? Anyway, you need compatible per each variant and each SoC
implementation.

Best regards,
Krzysztof