On Thu, May 21, 2026 at 01:38:57PM -0500, Shah, Tanmay wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Thank you for the reviews, please find my comments below:
>
> On 5/21/2026 12:48 PM, Mathieu Poirier wrote:
> > Good morning,
> >
> > I don't recal reviewing the first revision of this set. Can you provide a
> > link
> > to it so that I can read the comments that were provided?
> >
>
> Here it is:
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-remoteproc/[email protected]/
>
> The device-tree bindings needed rework in v1, so I sent v2, before we
> ever reviewed the driver part.
>
>
> > On Fri, May 01, 2026 at 07:37:07AM -0700, Tanmay Shah wrote:
> >> remoteproc framework has capability to start (or attach to) the remote
> >
> > The remoteproc framework...
> >
>
> Ack.
>
> >> processor automatically if auto boot flag is set by the driver during
> >> probe. If remote core is not started before the Linux boot, and linux is
> >> expected to start the remote core then it uses "firmware-name" property
> >> to load default firmware during auto boot.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Tanmay Shah <[email protected]>
> >> ---
> >> drivers/remoteproc/xlnx_r5_remoteproc.c | 48 +++++++++++++++++--------
> >> 1 file changed, 34 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/xlnx_r5_remoteproc.c
> >> b/drivers/remoteproc/xlnx_r5_remoteproc.c
> >> index 45a62cb98072..652030f9cea2 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/remoteproc/xlnx_r5_remoteproc.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/xlnx_r5_remoteproc.c
> >> @@ -899,17 +899,18 @@ static const struct rproc_ops zynqmp_r5_rproc_ops = {
> >> };
> >>
> >> /**
> >> - * zynqmp_r5_add_rproc_core() - Add core data to framework.
> >> - * Allocate and add struct rproc object for each r5f core
> >> + * zynqmp_r5_alloc_rproc_core() - alloc rproc core data structure
> >> + * Allocate struct rproc object for each r5f core
> >> * This is called for each individual r5f core
> >> *
> >> * @cdev: Device node of each r5 core
> >> *
> >> * Return: zynqmp_r5_core object for success else error code pointer
> >> */
> >> -static struct zynqmp_r5_core *zynqmp_r5_add_rproc_core(struct device
> >> *cdev)
> >> +static struct zynqmp_r5_core *zynqmp_r5_alloc_rproc_core(struct device
> >> *cdev)
> >
> > Why is there a need to change the function's name?
> >
>
> Before, the function was actually adding the rproc core by calling
> rproc_add() function, but now it only allocates the memory by calling
> rproc_alloc(). For auto boot to work it's important to add rproc core
> after all the other hw is initialized (such as mbox, tcm, sram,
> power-domains etc). More details below [1].
>
Ok
> >> {
> >> struct zynqmp_r5_core *r5_core;
> >> + const char *fw_name = NULL;
> >> struct rproc *r5_rproc;
> >> int ret;
> >>
> >> @@ -918,10 +919,15 @@ static struct zynqmp_r5_core
> >> *zynqmp_r5_add_rproc_core(struct device *cdev)
> >> if (ret)
> >> return ERR_PTR(ret);
> >>
> >> + ret = rproc_of_parse_firmware(cdev, 0, &fw_name);
> >> + if (ret < 0 && ret != -EINVAL)
> >> + return ERR_PTR(dev_err_probe(cdev, ret,
> >> + "failed to parse
> >> firmware-name\n"));
> >> +
> >> /* Allocate remoteproc instance */
> >> r5_rproc = rproc_alloc(cdev, dev_name(cdev),
> >> &zynqmp_r5_rproc_ops,
> >> - NULL, sizeof(struct zynqmp_r5_core));
> >> + fw_name, sizeof(struct zynqmp_r5_core));
> >> if (!r5_rproc) {
> >> dev_err(cdev, "failed to allocate memory for rproc instance\n");
> >> return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
> >> @@ -932,6 +938,11 @@ static struct zynqmp_r5_core
> >> *zynqmp_r5_add_rproc_core(struct device *cdev)
> >> r5_rproc->recovery_disabled = true;
> >> r5_rproc->has_iommu = false;
> >> r5_rproc->auto_boot = false;
> >> +
> >> + /* attempt to boot automatically if the firmware-name is provided */
> >> + if (fw_name)
> >> + r5_rproc->auto_boot = true;
> >> +
> >
> > What happens when a firmware name needs to be provided in the DT but you
> > don't
> > want to automatically boot the remote processor?
> >
>
> I think that use case is not needed. If the user/system-designer doesn't
> want auto-boot, then having firmware-name in the device-tree serves no
> purpose. User can always load the firmware via sysfs once kernel boots.
>
Ok
> >> r5_core = r5_rproc->priv;
> >> r5_core->dev = cdev;
> >> r5_core->np = dev_of_node(cdev);
> >> @@ -941,13 +952,6 @@ static struct zynqmp_r5_core
> >> *zynqmp_r5_add_rproc_core(struct device *cdev)
> >> goto free_rproc;
> >> }
> >>
> >> - /* Add R5 remoteproc core */
> >> - ret = rproc_add(r5_rproc);
> >> - if (ret) {
> >> - dev_err(cdev, "failed to add r5 remoteproc\n");
> >> - goto free_rproc;
> >> - }
> >> -
> >
> > I'm not sure why there is a need to move this to zynqmp_r5_cluster_init()?
> > Is
> > it simply to make the error path easier to handle? If so, please do that
> > in a
> > separate patch.
> >
>
> [1] This was moved to make auto-boot work. The remote core can auto-boot
> only after other hardware is initialized. The zynqmp_r5_core_init()
> initializes sram, TCM and power-domains of the core. Also, mailbox is
> requested before zynqmp_r5_core_init() as well. We can't auto-boot core
> directly without all this. So, I had to move rproc_add() at the end of
> the cluster init, and rename above function from
> zynqmp_r5_add_rproc_core to zynqmp_r5_alloc_rproc_core.
>
> If you prefer, I will add above explanation in the commit text, or as
> comment right before rproc_add().
>
Yes, please add that to the commit log.
>
>
> >> r5_core->rproc = r5_rproc;
> >> return r5_core;
> >>
> >> @@ -1280,6 +1284,7 @@ static int zynqmp_r5_core_init(struct
> >> zynqmp_r5_cluster *cluster,
> >> if (zynqmp_r5_get_rsc_table_va(r5_core))
> >> dev_dbg(r5_core->dev, "rsc tbl not found\n");
> >> r5_core->rproc->state = RPROC_DETACHED;
> >> + r5_core->rproc->auto_boot = true;
> >
> > I thought this was done in zynqmp_r5_add_rproc_core() - what am I missing?
> >
>
> That function is now zynqmp_r5_alloc_core() as mentioned above. Also,
> until now, auto_boot was set to 'false' only to show that it is
> disabled. It is actually used and enabled now.
>
Ok
> > Thanks,
> > Mathieu
> >
> >> }
> >> }
> >>
> >> @@ -1304,7 +1309,7 @@ static int zynqmp_r5_cluster_init(struct
> >> zynqmp_r5_cluster *cluster)
> >> enum rpu_oper_mode fw_reg_val;
> >> struct device **child_devs;
> >> enum rpu_tcm_comb tcm_mode;
> >> - int core_count, ret, i;
> >> + int core_count, ret, i, j;
> >> struct mbox_info *ipi;
> >>
> >> ret = of_property_read_u32(dev_node, "xlnx,cluster-mode",
> >> &cluster_mode);
> >> @@ -1390,7 +1395,7 @@ static int zynqmp_r5_cluster_init(struct
> >> zynqmp_r5_cluster *cluster)
> >> child_devs[i] = &child_pdev->dev;
> >>
> >> /* create and add remoteproc instance of type struct rproc */
> >> - r5_cores[i] = zynqmp_r5_add_rproc_core(&child_pdev->dev);
> >> + r5_cores[i] = zynqmp_r5_alloc_rproc_core(&child_pdev->dev);
> >> if (IS_ERR(r5_cores[i])) {
> >> ret = PTR_ERR(r5_cores[i]);
> >> r5_cores[i] = NULL;
> >> @@ -1435,16 +1440,31 @@ static int zynqmp_r5_cluster_init(struct
> >> zynqmp_r5_cluster *cluster)
> >> goto release_r5_cores;
> >> }
> >>
> >> + for (j = 0; j < cluster->core_count; j++) {
> >> + /* Add R5 remoteproc core */
> >> + ret = rproc_add(r5_cores[j]->rproc);
> >> + if (ret) {
> >> + dev_err_probe(r5_cores[j]->dev, ret,
> >> + "failed to add remoteproc\n");
> >> + goto delete_r5_cores;
> >> + }
> >> + }
> >> +
> >> kfree(child_devs);
> >> return 0;
> >>
> >> +delete_r5_cores:
> >> + i = core_count - 1;
> >> + /* delete previous added rproc */
> >> + while (--j >= 0)
> >> + rproc_del(r5_cores[j]->rproc);
> >> +
> >> release_r5_cores:
> >> while (i >= 0) {
> >> put_device(child_devs[i]);
> >> if (r5_cores[i]) {
> >> zynqmp_r5_free_mbox(r5_cores[i]->ipi);
> >> of_reserved_mem_device_release(r5_cores[i]->dev);
> >> - rproc_del(r5_cores[i]->rproc);
> >> rproc_free(r5_cores[i]->rproc);
> >> }
> >> i--;
> >> --
> >> 2.34.1
> >>
>
