RE: [PATCH v3 06/16] remoteproc: k3-r5: Extend support for R5F clusters on J784S4 SoCs

["Kumar, Udit" <u-kumar1@ti.com>]

Hi Roger

>
>
>On 08/09/2023 14:05, Apurva Nandan wrote:
>> From: Hari Nagalla <hnagalla@ti.com>
>>
>> The K3 J784S4 SoCs have four dual-core R5F subsystems, one in MCU
>> voltage domain and the other three in MAIN voltage domain. These R5F
>> clusters are similar to the R5F clusters in J7200 and J721S2 SoCs.
>>
>> Extend support to the R5F clusters for J784S4 with J721S2 compatible
>> string.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Hari Nagalla <hnagalla@ti.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Apurva Nandan <a-nandan@ti.com>
>> ---
>>  drivers/remoteproc/ti_k3_r5f_rproc.c | 6 ++++--
>>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/ti_k3_r5f_rproc.c
>> b/drivers/remoteproc/ti_k3_r5f_rproc.c
>> index 6f3e12d915..631e548dcc 100644
>> --- a/drivers/remoteproc/ti_k3_r5f_rproc.c
>> +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/ti_k3_r5f_rproc.c
>> @@ -855,7 +855,7 @@ static const struct k3_r5f_ip_data k3_data = {
>>  	.tcm_ecc_autoinit = false,
>>  };
>>
>> -static const struct k3_r5f_ip_data j7200_data = {
>> +static const struct k3_r5f_ip_data j7200_j721s2_data = {
>
>No need to rename this.
>
>>  	.tcm_is_double = true,
>>  	.tcm_ecc_autoinit = true,
>>  };
>> @@ -863,7 +863,8 @@ static const struct k3_r5f_ip_data j7200_data = {
>> static const struct udevice_id k3_r5f_rproc_ids[] = {
>>  	{ .compatible = "ti,am654-r5f", .data = (ulong)&k3_data, },
>>  	{ .compatible = "ti,j721e-r5f", .data = (ulong)&k3_data, },
>> -	{ .compatible = "ti,j7200-r5f", .data = (ulong)&j7200_data, },
>> +	{ .compatible = "ti,j7200-r5f", .data = (ulong)&j7200_j721s2_data, },
>> +	{ .compatible = "ti,j721s2-r5f", .data = (ulong)&j7200_j721s2_data,
>> +},
>
>Where is DT binding documentation for this?


Please see https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/source/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/remoteproc/ti,k3-r5f-rproc.yaml#L45 

>Don't you need compatible for ti,j728s4-r5f?

If IP is same then we should use available compatible,

In long term, we should dis-associate name of IP with name of silicon 

Thanks 

>>  	{}
>>  };
>>
>> @@ -901,6 +902,7 @@ static const struct udevice_id k3_r5fss_ids[] = {
>>  	{ .compatible = "ti,am654-r5fss"},
>>  	{ .compatible = "ti,j721e-r5fss"},
>>  	{ .compatible = "ti,j7200-r5fss"},
>> +	{ .compatible = "ti,j721s2-r5fss"},
>>  	{}
>>  };
>>
>
>--
>cheers,
>-roger