On 1/22/20 11:10 PM, Keerthy wrote:
>
>
> On 22/01/20 9:55 pm, Andrew F. Davis wrote:
>> On 1/21/20 8:10 PM, keerthy wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 1/21/2020 6:26 PM, Andrew F. Davis wrote:
>>>> On 1/21/20 6:07 AM, Keerthy wrote:
>>>>> Add MAIN domain R5FSS0 remoteproc support from spl. This enables
>>>>> loading the elf firmware in SPL and starting the remotecore.
>>>>>
>>>>> In order to start the core, there should be a file with path
>>>>> "/lib/firmware/j7-main-r5f0_0-fw" under filesystem
>>>>> of respective boot mode.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Keerthy <j-keer...@ti.com>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Lokesh Vutla <lokeshvu...@ti.com>
>>>>> [Guard start_non_linux_remote_cores under CONFIG_FS_LOADER]
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Andreas Dannenberg <dannenb...@ti.com>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> arch/arm/mach-k3/common.c | 84
>>>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---
>>>>> arch/arm/mach-k3/common.h | 2 +
>>>>> arch/arm/mach-k3/j721e_init.c | 34 ++++++++++++++
>>>>> 3 files changed, 115 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-k3/common.c b/arch/arm/mach-k3/common.c
>>>>> index 8d1529062d..f0ac0c39f1 100644
>>>>> --- a/arch/arm/mach-k3/common.c
>>>>> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-k3/common.c
>>>>> @@ -16,6 +16,10 @@
>>>>> #include <asm/arch/sys_proto.h>
>>>>> #include <asm/hardware.h>
>>>>> #include <asm/io.h>
>>>>> +#include <fs_loader.h>
>>>>> +#include <fs.h>
>>>>> +#include <env.h>
>>>>> +#include <elf.h>
>>>>> struct ti_sci_handle *get_ti_sci_handle(void)
>>>>> {
>>>>> @@ -57,6 +61,74 @@ int early_console_init(void)
>>>>> #endif
>>>>> #ifdef CONFIG_SYS_K3_SPL_ATF
>>>>> +
>>>>> +void init_env(void)
>>>>> +{
>>>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_SPL_ENV_SUPPORT
>>>>> + char *part;
>>>>> +
>>>>> + env_init();
>>>>> + env_load();
>>>>> + switch (spl_boot_device()) {
>>>>> + case BOOT_DEVICE_MMC2:
>>>>> + part = env_get("bootpart");
>>>>> + env_set("storage_interface", "mmc");
>>>>> + env_set("fw_dev_part", part);
>>>>> + break;
>>>>> + case BOOT_DEVICE_SPI:
>>>>> + env_set("storage_interface", "ubi");
>>>>> + env_set("fw_ubi_mtdpart", "UBI");
>>>>> + env_set("fw_ubi_volume", "UBI0");
>>>>> + break;
>>>>> + default:
>>>>> + printf("%s from device %u not supported!\n",
>>>>> + __func__, spl_boot_device());
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This will print for almost every boot mode..
>>>
>>> I can keep this under debug.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> + return;
>>>>> + }
>>>>> +#endif
>>>>> +}
>>>>> +
>>>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_FS_LOADER
>>>>> +int load_firmware(char *name_fw, char *name_loadaddr, u32 *loadaddr)
>>>>> +{
>>>>> + struct udevice *fsdev;
>>>>> + char *name = NULL;
>>>>> + int size = 0;
>>>>> +
>>>>> + *loadaddr = 0;
>>>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_SPL_ENV_SUPPORT
>>>>> + switch (spl_boot_device()) {
>>>>> + case BOOT_DEVICE_MMC2:
>>>>> + name = env_get(name_fw);
>>>>> + *loadaddr = env_get_hex(name_loadaddr, *loadaddr);
>>>>> + break;
>>>>> + default:
>>>>> + printf("Loading rproc fw image from device %u not
>>>>> supported!\n",
>>>>> + spl_boot_device());
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This whole thing seems very MMC specific, if early firmware loading is
>>>> important it should work for all boot modes. Find a way to include
>>>> it in
>>>> the next boot stage FIT image (tispl.bin) so it works for all modes.
>>>
>>> That was not NAKd. We are going with fs_loader approach.
>>>
>>
>>
>> When, where, link?
>
> I had implemented that way internally. That was rejected for multiple
> right reasons:
>
I must have missed the internal reviews for this, anyway this is posted
upstream so lets discus it here.
> 1) SPL size would bloat based on the size of the firmware.
SPL size would remain constant, the combined FIT (tispl.bin) would grow,
but that is okay as DRAM is enabled at this point so we have no hard
memory constraints.
> 2) There are multiple cores that need to be loaded and hence adding all
> the firmwares under a fit can be really painful.
Bundling images is what FIT is for, are you saying the better solution
is to hard-code each firmware starting like done here?
> 3) Changing firmware means building the tispl.bin again.
>
FIT images can be disassembled and reassembled with a script around
tools/dumpimage.
SPL should be simple and load the one next stage.
> The FIT solution can not scale well.
>
How does this current series scale at all? At least with FIT you can add
more images without adding code for
request_firmware(<hard-coded-firmware-name>) and
rproc_load(<hard-coded-number>). That all could be encoded in the FIT data.
Andrew
> - Keerthy
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> + return 0;
>>>>> + }
>>>>> +#endif
>>>>> + if (!*loadaddr)
>>>>> + return 0;
>>>>> +
>>>>> + if (!uclass_get_device(UCLASS_FS_FIRMWARE_LOADER, 0, &fsdev)) {
>>>>> + size = request_firmware_into_buf(fsdev, name, (void
>>>>> *)*loadaddr,
>>>>> + 0, 0);
>>>>> + }
>>>>> +
>>>>> + return size;
>>>>> +}
>>>>> +#else
>>>>> +int load_firmware(char *name_fw, char *name_loadaddr, u32 *loadaddr)
>>>>> +{
>>>>> + return 0;
>>>>> +}
>>>>> +#endif
>>>>> +
>>>>> +__weak void start_non_linux_remote_cores(void)
>>>>> +{
>>>>> +}
>>>>> +
>>>>> void __noreturn jump_to_image_no_args(struct spl_image_info
>>>>> *spl_image)
>>>>> {
>>>>> struct ti_sci_handle *ti_sci = get_ti_sci_handle();
>>>>> @@ -65,15 +137,17 @@ void __noreturn jump_to_image_no_args(struct
>>>>> spl_image_info *spl_image)
>>>>> /* Release all the exclusive devices held by SPL before
>>>>> starting ATF */
>>>>> ti_sci->ops.dev_ops.release_exclusive_devices(ti_sci);
>>>>> + ret = rproc_init();
>>>>> + if (ret)
>>>>> + panic("rproc failed to be initialized (%d)\n", ret);
>>>>> +
>>>>> + init_env();
>>>>> + start_non_linux_remote_cores();
>>>>> +
>>>>> /*
>>>>> * It is assumed that remoteproc device 1 is the corresponding
>>>>> * Cortex-A core which runs ATF. Make sure DT reflects the
>>>>> same.
>>>>> */
>>>>> - ret = rproc_dev_init(1);
>>>>> - if (ret)
>>>>> - panic("%s: ATF failed to initialize on rproc (%d)\n",
>>>>> __func__,
>>>>> - ret);
>>>>> -
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Where did this code go?
>>>
>>> rproc_init takes care of that.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Is that new behavior then? It should be it's own patch with a commit
>> message about that.
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> ret = rproc_load(1, spl_image->entry_point, 0x200);
>>>>> if (ret)
>>>>> panic("%s: ATF failed to load on rproc (%d)\n", __func__,
>>>>> ret);
>>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-k3/common.h b/arch/arm/mach-k3/common.h
>>>>> index d8b34fe060..42fb8ee6e7 100644
>>>>> --- a/arch/arm/mach-k3/common.h
>>>>> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-k3/common.h
>>>>> @@ -24,3 +24,5 @@ void setup_k3_mpu_regions(void);
>>>>> int early_console_init(void);
>>>>> void disable_linefill_optimization(void);
>>>>> void remove_fwl_configs(struct fwl_data *fwl_data, size_t
>>>>> fwl_data_size);
>>>>> +void start_non_linux_remote_cores(void);
>>>>> +int load_firmware(char *name_fw, char *name_loadaddr, u32 *loadaddr);
>>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-k3/j721e_init.c
>>>>> b/arch/arm/mach-k3/j721e_init.c
>>>>> index f7f7398081..c5f8ede1a0 100644
>>>>> --- a/arch/arm/mach-k3/j721e_init.c
>>>>> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-k3/j721e_init.c
>>>>> @@ -18,6 +18,7 @@
>>>>> #include <dm.h>
>>>>> #include <dm/uclass-internal.h>
>>>>> #include <dm/pinctrl.h>
>>>>> +#include <remoteproc.h>
>>>>> #ifdef CONFIG_SPL_BUILD
>>>>> #ifdef CONFIG_K3_LOAD_SYSFW
>>>>> @@ -295,3 +296,36 @@ void release_resources_for_core_shutdown(void)
>>>>> }
>>>>> }
>>>>> #endif
>>>>> +
>>>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_SYS_K3_SPL_ATF
>>>>> +void start_non_linux_remote_cores(void)
>>>>> +{
>>>>> + int size = 0, ret;
>>>>> + u32 loadaddr = 0;
>>>>> +
>>>>> + size = load_firmware("mainr5f0_0fwname", "mainr5f0_0loadaddr",
>>>>> + &loadaddr);
>>>>> + if (size <= 0)
>>>>> + goto err_load;
>>>>> +
>>>>> + /* remoteproc 2 is aliased for the needed remotecore */
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Assuming the big-arm core to boot is remoteproc 1 was reasonable, but
>>>> there needs to be a better what than assuming the number for every
>>>> other
>>>> remote core.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> + ret = rproc_load(2, loadaddr, size);
>>>>> + if (ret) {
>>>>> + printf("Firmware failed to start on rproc (%d)\n", ret);
>>>>> + goto err_load;
>>>>> + }
>>>>> +
>>>>> + ret = rproc_start(2);
>>>>> + if (ret) {
>>>>> + printf("Firmware init failed on rproc (%d)\n", ret);
>>>>> + goto err_load;
>>>>> + }
>>>>> +
>>>>> + printf("Remoteproc 2 started successfully\n");
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That's useful..
>>>
>>> That is a print that tells everything went well with rproc 2. Otherwise
>>> one has to really find other ways to see if it succeeded or not.
>>>
>>
>>
>> I'm just a customer booting my board, I have no idea what a "Remoteproc
>> 2" is. I'm saying make the message describe what has happened.
>>
>> Andrew
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>> Andrew
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> +
>>>>> + return;
>>>>> +
>>>>> +err_load:
>>>>> + rproc_reset(2);
>>>>> +}
>>>>> +#endif
>>>>>
