On Wed, 24 Jul 2024 at 16:04, Tanmay Shah <tanmay.s...@amd.com> wrote: > > Hello Mathieu, > > Thanks for reviews. > > All the comments looks good, I will send next revision addressing them all. > > On 7/22/24 11:39 AM, Mathieu Poirier wrote: > > Good morning, > > > > On Mon, Jul 15, 2024 at 06:39:54PM -0700, Tanmay Shah wrote: > >> AMD-Xilinx zynqmp platform contains on-chip sram memory (OCM). > >> R5 cores can access OCM and access is faster than DDR memory but slower > >> than TCM memories available. Sram region can have optional multiple > >> power-domains. Platform management firmware is responsible > >> to operate these power-domains. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Tanmay Shah <tanmay.s...@amd.com> > >> --- > >> > >> Changes in v2: > >> - Expand commit message with power-domains related information. > >> > >> drivers/remoteproc/xlnx_r5_remoteproc.c | 131 ++++++++++++++++++++++++ > >> 1 file changed, 131 insertions(+) > >> > >> diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/xlnx_r5_remoteproc.c > >> b/drivers/remoteproc/xlnx_r5_remoteproc.c > >> index 596f3ffb8935..52ddd42b09e0 100644 > >> --- a/drivers/remoteproc/xlnx_r5_remoteproc.c > >> +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/xlnx_r5_remoteproc.c > >> @@ -56,6 +56,17 @@ struct mem_bank_data { > >> char *bank_name; > >> }; > >> > >> +/** > >> + * struct zynqmp_sram_bank - sram bank description > >> + * > >> + * @sram_res: sram address region information > >> + * @da: device address of sram > >> + */ > >> +struct zynqmp_sram_bank { > >> + struct resource sram_res; > >> + u32 da; > >> +}; > >> + > >> /** > >> * struct mbox_info > >> * > >> @@ -120,6 +131,8 @@ static const struct mem_bank_data > >> zynqmp_tcm_banks_lockstep[] = { > >> * struct zynqmp_r5_core > >> * > >> * @rsc_tbl_va: resource table virtual address > >> + * @sram: Array of sram memories assigned to this core > >> + * @num_sram: number of sram for this core > >> * @dev: device of RPU instance > >> * @np: device node of RPU instance > >> * @tcm_bank_count: number TCM banks accessible to this RPU > >> @@ -131,6 +144,8 @@ static const struct mem_bank_data > >> zynqmp_tcm_banks_lockstep[] = { > >> */ > >> struct zynqmp_r5_core { > >> void __iomem *rsc_tbl_va; > >> + struct zynqmp_sram_bank **sram; > > > > I suggest making @sram an array rather than an array of pointers - it would > > simplify function zynqmp_r5_get_sram_banks(). > > > > Ack. > > >> + int num_sram; > >> struct device *dev; > >> struct device_node *np; > >> int tcm_bank_count; > >> @@ -494,6 +509,40 @@ static int add_mem_regions_carveout(struct rproc > >> *rproc) > >> return 0; > >> } > >> > >> +static int add_sram_carveouts(struct rproc *rproc) > >> +{ > >> + struct zynqmp_r5_core *r5_core = rproc->priv; > >> + struct rproc_mem_entry *rproc_mem; > >> + struct zynqmp_sram_bank *sram; > >> + dma_addr_t dma_addr; > >> + size_t len; > >> + int da, i; > >> + > >> + for (i = 0; i < r5_core->num_sram; i++) { > >> + sram = r5_core->sram[i]; > >> + > >> + dma_addr = (dma_addr_t)sram->sram_res.start; > >> + len = resource_size(&sram->sram_res); > >> + da = sram->da; > >> + > >> + /* Register associated reserved memory regions */ > >> + rproc_mem = rproc_mem_entry_init(&rproc->dev, NULL, > >> + (dma_addr_t)dma_addr, > >> + len, da, > >> + zynqmp_r5_mem_region_map, > >> + zynqmp_r5_mem_region_unmap, > >> + sram->sram_res.name); > >> + > >> + rproc_add_carveout(rproc, rproc_mem); > >> + rproc_coredump_add_segment(rproc, da, len); > >> + > >> + dev_dbg(&rproc->dev, "sram carveout %s addr=%llx, da=0x%x, > >> size=0x%lx", > >> + sram->sram_res.name, dma_addr, da, len); > >> + } > >> + > >> + return 0; > >> +} > >> + > >> /* > >> * tcm_mem_unmap() > >> * @rproc: single R5 core's corresponding rproc instance > >> @@ -669,6 +718,12 @@ static int zynqmp_r5_rproc_prepare(struct rproc > >> *rproc) > >> return ret; > >> } > >> > >> + ret = add_sram_carveouts(rproc); > >> + if (ret) { > >> + dev_err(&rproc->dev, "failed to get sram carveout %d\n", ret); > >> + return ret; > >> + } > >> + > >> return 0; > >> } > >> > >> @@ -881,6 +936,78 @@ static struct zynqmp_r5_core > >> *zynqmp_r5_add_rproc_core(struct device *cdev) > >> return ERR_PTR(ret); > >> } > >> > >> +static int zynqmp_r5_get_sram_banks(struct zynqmp_r5_core *r5_core) > >> +{ > >> + struct zynqmp_sram_bank **sram, *sram_data; > >> + struct device_node *np = r5_core->np; > >> + struct device *dev = r5_core->dev; > >> + struct device_node *sram_np; > >> + int num_sram, i, ret; > >> + u64 abs_addr, size; > >> + > >> + /* "sram" is optional proprty. Do not fail, if unavailable. */ > > > > s/proprty/property > > Ack. > > > > >> + if (!of_find_property(r5_core->np, "sram", NULL)) > >> + return 0; > >> + > >> + num_sram = of_property_count_elems_of_size(np, "sram", > >> sizeof(phandle)); > >> + if (num_sram <= 0) { > > > > Any reason this is "<" rather than "<=" ? > > I will make it < 1. >
I had another read at the documentation of function of_property_count_elems_of_size() - what you had will work just fine. You can disregard this comment. > > > >> + dev_err(dev, "Invalid sram property, ret = %d\n", > >> + num_sram); > >> + return -EINVAL; > >> + } > >> + > >> + sram = devm_kcalloc(dev, num_sram, > >> + sizeof(struct zynqmp_sram_bank *), GFP_KERNEL); > >> + if (!sram) > >> + return -ENOMEM; > >> + > >> + for (i = 0; i < num_sram; i++) { > >> + sram_data = devm_kzalloc(dev, sizeof(struct zynqmp_sram_bank), > >> + GFP_KERNEL); > >> + if (!sram_data) > >> + return -ENOMEM; > >> + > >> + sram_np = of_parse_phandle(np, "sram", i); > >> + if (!sram_np) { > >> + dev_err(dev, "failed to get sram %d phandle\n", i); > >> + return -EINVAL; > >> + } > >> + > >> + if (!of_device_is_available(sram_np)) { > >> + of_node_put(sram_np); > >> + dev_err(dev, "sram device not available\n"); > >> + return -EINVAL; > >> + } > >> + > >> + ret = of_address_to_resource(sram_np, 0, > >> &sram_data->sram_res); > >> + of_node_put(sram_np); > > > > Why calling this here when sram_np is used below? > > > > Ack. > I wanted to keep of_node_put as close as of_node_get. > But, I think within same function I can move of_node_put after all use of > sram_np. > > I didn't face any runtime errors though, so I am wondering is it required ? It is required to keep a proper reference count of the node. > > I will move it anyway as suggested. > > >> + if (ret) { > >> + dev_err(dev, "addr to res failed\n"); > >> + return ret; > >> + } > >> + > >> + /* Get SRAM device address */ > >> + ret = of_property_read_reg(sram_np, i, &abs_addr, &size); > >> + if (ret) { > >> + dev_err(dev, "failed to get reg property\n"); > >> + return ret; > >> + } > >> + > >> + sram_data->da = (u32)abs_addr; > >> + > >> + sram[i] = sram_data; > >> + > >> + dev_dbg(dev, "sram %d: name=%s, addr=0x%llx, da=0x%x, > >> size=0x%llx\n", > >> + i, sram[i]->sram_res.name, sram[i]->sram_res.start, > >> + sram[i]->da, resource_size(&sram[i]->sram_res)); > >> + } > >> + > >> + r5_core->sram = sram; > >> + r5_core->num_sram = num_sram; > >> + > >> + return 0; > >> +} > >> + > >> static int zynqmp_r5_get_tcm_node_from_dt(struct zynqmp_r5_cluster > >> *cluster) > >> { > >> int i, j, tcm_bank_count, ret, tcm_pd_idx, pd_count; > >> @@ -1095,6 +1222,10 @@ static int zynqmp_r5_core_init(struct > >> zynqmp_r5_cluster *cluster, > >> return ret; > >> } > >> } > >> + > >> + ret = zynqmp_r5_get_sram_banks(r5_core); > >> + if (ret) > >> + return ret; > >> } > > > > Thanks, > > Mathieu > > > >> > >> return 0; > >> > >> base-commit: d87dbfd31796f810ed777aee4919f211b4a6c7fb > >> -- > >> 2.25.1 > >> >