> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] remoteproc: imx_rproc: Add support for
> System Manager API
>
> Hi Peng,
>
> Thanks a lot for the patches. Comments inline:
>
> On Wed, Jun 4, 2025 at 5:36 AM Peng Fan (OSS)
> <peng....@oss.nxp.com> wrote:
> >
> > From: Peng Fan <peng....@nxp.com>
> >
> > i.MX95 features a Cortex-M33 core, six Cortex-A55 cores, and one
> > Cortex-M7 core. The System Control Management Interface(SCMI)
> firmware
> > runs on the M33 core. The i.MX95 SCMI firmware named System
> > Manager(SM) includes vendor extension protocols, Logical Machine
> > Management(LMM) protocol and CPU protocol and etc.
> >
> > There are three cases for M7:
> > (1) M7 in a separate Logical Machine(LM) that Linux couldn't control
> it.
> couldn't -> can't
>
> > (2) M7 in a separate Logical Machine that Linux could control it using
> > LMM protocol
> could -> can
>
> > (3) M7 runs in same Logical Machine as A55, so Linux could control it
> > using CPU protocol
> could -> can
>
> >
> > So extend the driver to using LMM and CPU protocol to manage the
> M7 core.
> > - Add IMX_RPROC_SM to indicate the remotecores runs on a SoC
> that
> > has System Manager.
>
> remotecores -> remote core
>
> > - Compare linux LM ID(got using scmi_imx_lmm_info) and M7 LM
> ID(got
> > from DTB), if same, use CPU protocol to start/stop. Otherwise, use
> > LMM protocol to start/stop.
> > Whether using CPU or LMM protocol to start/stop, the M7 status
> > detection could use CPU protocol to detect started or not. So
> > in imx_rproc_detect_mode, use scmi_imx_cpu_started to check the
> > status of M7.
> > - For above case 1 and 2, Use SCMI_IMX_LMM_POWER_ON to
> detect whether
> > the M7 LM is under control of A55 LM.
> >
> > Current setup relies on pre-Linux software(U-Boot) to do
> > M7 TCM ECC initialization. In future, we could add the support in
> > Linux to decouple U-Boot and Linux.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Peng Fan <peng....@nxp.com>
> > ---
> > drivers/remoteproc/imx_rproc.c | 139
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> > drivers/remoteproc/imx_rproc.h | 2 +
> > 2 files changed, 139 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/imx_rproc.c
> > b/drivers/remoteproc/imx_rproc.c index
> >
> 74299af1d7f10a0db794de494c52304b2323b89f..0649faa98725db99
> 366946c65edf
> > 5b7daff78316 100644
> > --- a/drivers/remoteproc/imx_rproc.c
> > +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/imx_rproc.c
> > @@ -8,6 +8,7 @@
> > #include <linux/clk.h>
> > #include <linux/err.h>
> > #include <linux/firmware/imx/sci.h>
> > +#include <linux/firmware/imx/sm.h>
> > #include <linux/interrupt.h>
> > #include <linux/kernel.h>
> > #include <linux/mailbox_client.h>
> > @@ -21,6 +22,7 @@
> > #include <linux/reboot.h>
> > #include <linux/regmap.h>
> > #include <linux/remoteproc.h>
> > +#include <linux/scmi_imx_protocol.h>
> > #include <linux/workqueue.h>
> >
> > #include "imx_rproc.h"
> > @@ -91,6 +93,11 @@ struct imx_rproc_mem {
> > #define ATT_CORE_MASK 0xffff
> > #define ATT_CORE(I) BIT((I))
> >
> > +/* Logical Machine Operation */
> > +#define IMX_RPROC_FLAGS_SM_LMM_OP BIT(0)
> > +/* Linux has permission to handle the Logical Machine of remote
> cores */
> > +#define IMX_RPROC_FLAGS_SM_LMM_AVAIL BIT(1)
> > +
> > static int imx_rproc_xtr_mbox_init(struct rproc *rproc, bool
> > tx_block); static void imx_rproc_free_mbox(struct rproc *rproc);
> >
> > @@ -115,6 +122,22 @@ struct imx_rproc {
> > u32 entry; /* cpu start
> > address */
> > u32 core_index;
> > struct dev_pm_domain_list *pd_list;
> > + /* For i.MX System Manager based systems */
> > + u32 cpuid;
> > + u32 lmid;
> > + u32 flags;
> > +};
> > +
> > +static const struct imx_rproc_att imx_rproc_att_imx95_m7[] = {
> > + /* dev addr , sys addr , size , flags */
> > + /* TCM CODE NON-SECURE */
> > + { 0x00000000, 0x203C0000, 0x00040000, ATT_OWN |
> ATT_IOMEM },
> > +
> > + /* TCM SYS NON-SECURE*/
> > + { 0x20000000, 0x20400000, 0x00040000, ATT_OWN |
> ATT_IOMEM },
> > +
> > + /* DDR */
> > + { 0x80000000, 0x80000000, 0x50000000, 0 },
> > };
>
> ^ this belongs to patch 3/3
>
> Otherwise, patch looks good to me.
oops. I missed to move this to patch 3 when addressing
your internal reviewing comments.
Fix in V2 together with the typo that you mention
above.
Thanks,
Peng.
