[v2,1/2] Documentation: dt-bindings: k3-r5f-rproc: Add new compatible for AM62 SoC family

  AM62 family of devices don't have a R5F cluster, instead
they have single core DM R5F.
Add new compatible string ti,am62-r5fss to support this scenario.

When this new compatible is used don't allow cluster-mode
property usage in device-tree as this implies that there
is no R5F cluster available and only single R5F core
is present.

Signed-off-by: Devarsh Thakkar <devarsht@ti.com>
---
V2: Avoid acronyms, use "Device Manager" instead of "DM"
---
 .../bindings/remoteproc/ti,k3-r5f-rproc.yaml  | 48 +++++++++++++------
 1 file changed, 34 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
  

On 30/11/2022 14:40, Devarsh Thakkar wrote:
> AM62 family of devices don't have a R5F cluster, instead
> they have single core DM R5F.
> Add new compatible string ti,am62-r5fss to support this scenario.
> 
> When this new compatible is used don't allow cluster-mode
> property usage in device-tree as this implies that there
> is no R5F cluster available and only single R5F core
> is present.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Devarsh Thakkar <devarsht@ti.com>
> ---
> V2: Avoid acronyms, use "Device Manager" instead of "DM"

Use subject prefixes matching the subsystem (git log --oneline -- ...).

> ---
>  .../bindings/remoteproc/ti,k3-r5f-rproc.yaml  | 48 +++++++++++++------
>  1 file changed, 34 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/remoteproc/ti,k3-r5f-rproc.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/remoteproc/ti,k3-r5f-rproc.yaml
> index fb9605f0655b..91357635025a 100644
> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/remoteproc/ti,k3-r5f-rproc.yaml
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/remoteproc/ti,k3-r5f-rproc.yaml
> @@ -21,6 +21,9 @@ description: |
>    called "Single-CPU" mode, where only Core0 is used, but with ability to use
>    Core1's TCMs as well.
>  
> +  AM62 SoC family support a single R5F core only which runs Device Manager
> +  firmware and can also be used as a remote processor with IPC communication.
> +
>    Each Dual-Core R5F sub-system is represented as a single DTS node
>    representing the cluster, with a pair of child DT nodes representing
>    the individual R5F cores. Each node has a number of required or optional
> @@ -28,6 +31,9 @@ description: |
>    the device management of the remote processor and to communicate with the
>    remote processor.
>  
> +  Since AM62 SoC family only support a single core, there is no cluster-mode
> +  property setting required for it.
> +
>  properties:
>    $nodename:
>      pattern: "^r5fss(@.*)?"
> @@ -38,6 +44,7 @@ properties:
>        - ti,j721e-r5fss
>        - ti,j7200-r5fss
>        - ti,am64-r5fss
> +      - ti,am62-r5fss

Some order? Alphabetical, so before am64? Same in other places.


>        - ti,j721s2-r5fss
>  
>    power-domains:
> @@ -80,7 +87,8 @@ patternProperties:
>        node representing a TI instantiation of the Arm Cortex R5F core. There
>        are some specific integration differences for the IP like the usage of
>        a Region Address Translator (RAT) for translating the larger SoC bus
> -      addresses into a 32-bit address space for the processor.
> +      addresses into a 32-bit address space for the processor. For AM62x,
> +      should only define one R5F child node as it has only one core available.
>  
>        Each R5F core has an associated 64 KB of Tightly-Coupled Memory (TCM)
>        internal memories split between two banks - TCMA and TCMB (further
> @@ -104,6 +112,7 @@ patternProperties:
>            - ti,j721e-r5f
>            - ti,j7200-r5f
>            - ti,am64-r5f
> +          - ti,am62-r5f
>            - ti,j721s2-r5f
>  
>        reg:
> @@ -207,20 +216,31 @@ patternProperties:
>        - firmware-name
>  
>      unevaluatedProperties: false

Blank line.

> +allOf:
> +  - if:
> +      properties:
> +        compatible:
> +          enum:
> +            - ti,am64-r5fss
> +    then:
> +      properties:
> +        ti,cluster-mode:
> +          enum: [0, 2]
> +
> +    else:
> +      properties:
> +        ti,cluster-mode:

It's not really valid anymore for ti,am62-r5fss, so this cannot be
simple "else".  Instead you need to list all compatibles.

> +          enum: [0, 1]
> +
> +  - if:
> +      properties:
> +        compatible:
> +          enum:
> +            - ti,am62-r5fss
> +    then:
> +      properties:
> +        ti,cluster-mode: false
>  
> -if:
> -  properties:
> -    compatible:
> -      enum:
> -        - ti,am64-r5fss
> -then:
> -  properties:
> -    ti,cluster-mode:
> -      enum: [0, 2]
> -else:
> -  properties:
> -    ti,cluster-mode:
> -      enum: [0, 1]
>  
>  required:
>    - compatible

Best regards,
Krzysztof
  

Hi Krzysztof,

Thanks for the review. Please find my response inline.

On 30/11/22 20:33, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 30/11/2022 14:40, Devarsh Thakkar wrote:
>> AM62 family of devices don't have a R5F cluster, instead
>> they have single core DM R5F.
>> Add new compatible string ti,am62-r5fss to support this scenario.
>>
>> When this new compatible is used don't allow cluster-mode
>> property usage in device-tree as this implies that there
>> is no R5F cluster available and only single R5F core
>> is present.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Devarsh Thakkar <devarsht@ti.com>
>> ---
>> V2: Avoid acronyms, use "Device Manager" instead of "DM"
> 
> Use subject prefixes matching the subsystem (git log --oneline -- ...).
Agreed, I will update the prefix as dt-bindings: remoteproc: k3-r5f: in V3.
> 
>> ---
>>  .../bindings/remoteproc/ti,k3-r5f-rproc.yaml  | 48 +++++++++++++------
>>  1 file changed, 34 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/remoteproc/ti,k3-r5f-rproc.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/remoteproc/ti,k3-r5f-rproc.yaml
>> index fb9605f0655b..91357635025a 100644
>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/remoteproc/ti,k3-r5f-rproc.yaml
>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/remoteproc/ti,k3-r5f-rproc.yaml
>> @@ -21,6 +21,9 @@ description: |
>>    called "Single-CPU" mode, where only Core0 is used, but with ability to use
>>    Core1's TCMs as well.
>>  
>> +  AM62 SoC family support a single R5F core only which runs Device Manager
>> +  firmware and can also be used as a remote processor with IPC communication.
>> +
>>    Each Dual-Core R5F sub-system is represented as a single DTS node
>>    representing the cluster, with a pair of child DT nodes representing
>>    the individual R5F cores. Each node has a number of required or optional
>> @@ -28,6 +31,9 @@ description: |
>>    the device management of the remote processor and to communicate with the
>>    remote processor.
>>  
>> +  Since AM62 SoC family only support a single core, there is no cluster-mode
>> +  property setting required for it.
>> +
>>  properties:
>>    $nodename:
>>      pattern: "^r5fss(@.*)?"
>> @@ -38,6 +44,7 @@ properties:
>>        - ti,j721e-r5fss
>>        - ti,j7200-r5fss
>>        - ti,am64-r5fss
>> +      - ti,am62-r5fss
> 
> Some order? Alphabetical, so before am64? Same in other places.
Agreed, I will update in V3 accordingly.
> 
> 
>>        - ti,j721s2-r5fss
>>  
>>    power-domains:
>> @@ -80,7 +87,8 @@ patternProperties:
>>        node representing a TI instantiation of the Arm Cortex R5F core. There
>>        are some specific integration differences for the IP like the usage of
>>        a Region Address Translator (RAT) for translating the larger SoC bus
>> -      addresses into a 32-bit address space for the processor.
>> +      addresses into a 32-bit address space for the processor. For AM62x,
>> +      should only define one R5F child node as it has only one core available.
>>  
>>        Each R5F core has an associated 64 KB of Tightly-Coupled Memory (TCM)
>>        internal memories split between two banks - TCMA and TCMB (further
>> @@ -104,6 +112,7 @@ patternProperties:
>>            - ti,j721e-r5f
>>            - ti,j7200-r5f
>>            - ti,am64-r5f
>> +          - ti,am62-r5f
>>            - ti,j721s2-r5f
>>  
>>        reg:
>> @@ -207,20 +216,31 @@ patternProperties:
>>        - firmware-name
>>  
>>      unevaluatedProperties: false
> 
> Blank line.
Agreed, I will remove it in V3.
> 
>> +allOf:
>> +  - if:
>> +      properties:
>> +        compatible:
>> +          enum:
>> +            - ti,am64-r5fss
>> +    then:
>> +      properties:
>> +        ti,cluster-mode:
>> +          enum: [0, 2]
>> +
>> +    else:
>> +      properties:
>> +        ti,cluster-mode:
> 
> It's not really valid anymore for ti,am62-r5fss, so this cannot be
> simple "else".  Instead you need to list all compatibles.
I agree that the else block is not valid for am62x, but my understanding is that since all the blocks under allOf are checked for validity,
I thought to add a separate if block only for am62x to set cluster-mode to false [1], which I believe would negate the effect of above else condition for am62x,
so that we don't have to list all compatibles under separate if blocks.

Just to verify this, I deliberately set cluster-mode=1 in am62x devicetree and then ran a dtbs-check and got below log : 
"linux-next/arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-am625-sk.dtb: r5fss@78000000: ti,cluster-mode: False schema does not allow [[1]]"

and above warning log goes away when i remove the cluster-mode node in am62x devicetree.
But please do let me know if I am missing something here or there is a better/more proper way to do this.

Best Regards,
Devarsh

> 
>> +          enum: [0, 1]
>> +
[1]
>> +  - if:
>> +      properties:
>> +        compatible:
>> +          enum:
>> +            - ti,am62-r5fss
>> +    then:
>> +      properties:
>> +        ti,cluster-mode: false
>>  
>> -if:
>> -  properties:
>> -    compatible:
>> -      enum:
>> -        - ti,am64-r5fss
>> -then:
>> -  properties:
>> -    ti,cluster-mode:
>> -      enum: [0, 2]
>> -else:
>> -  properties:
>> -    ti,cluster-mode:
>> -      enum: [0, 1]
>>  
>>  required:
>>    - compatible
> 
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof
>
  

On 21/12/2022 08:42, Devarsh Thakkar wrote:
> Hi Krzysztof,
> 
> Thanks for the review. Please find my response inline.
> 
> On 30/11/22 20:33, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 30/11/2022 14:40, Devarsh Thakkar wrote:
>>> AM62 family of devices don't have a R5F cluster, instead
>>> they have single core DM R5F.
>>> Add new compatible string ti,am62-r5fss to support this scenario.
>>>
>>> When this new compatible is used don't allow cluster-mode
>>> property usage in device-tree as this implies that there
>>> is no R5F cluster available and only single R5F core
>>> is present.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Devarsh Thakkar <devarsht@ti.com>
>>> ---
>>> V2: Avoid acronyms, use "Device Manager" instead of "DM"
>>
>> Use subject prefixes matching the subsystem (git log --oneline -- ...).
> Agreed, I will update the prefix as dt-bindings: remoteproc: k3-r5f: in V3.
>>
>>> ---
>>>  .../bindings/remoteproc/ti,k3-r5f-rproc.yaml  | 48 +++++++++++++------
>>>  1 file changed, 34 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/remoteproc/ti,k3-r5f-rproc.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/remoteproc/ti,k3-r5f-rproc.yaml
>>> index fb9605f0655b..91357635025a 100644
>>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/remoteproc/ti,k3-r5f-rproc.yaml
>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/remoteproc/ti,k3-r5f-rproc.yaml
>>> @@ -21,6 +21,9 @@ description: |
>>>    called "Single-CPU" mode, where only Core0 is used, but with ability to use
>>>    Core1's TCMs as well.
>>>  
>>> +  AM62 SoC family support a single R5F core only which runs Device Manager
>>> +  firmware and can also be used as a remote processor with IPC communication.
>>> +
>>>    Each Dual-Core R5F sub-system is represented as a single DTS node
>>>    representing the cluster, with a pair of child DT nodes representing
>>>    the individual R5F cores. Each node has a number of required or optional
>>> @@ -28,6 +31,9 @@ description: |
>>>    the device management of the remote processor and to communicate with the
>>>    remote processor.
>>>  
>>> +  Since AM62 SoC family only support a single core, there is no cluster-mode
>>> +  property setting required for it.
>>> +
>>>  properties:
>>>    $nodename:
>>>      pattern: "^r5fss(@.*)?"
>>> @@ -38,6 +44,7 @@ properties:
>>>        - ti,j721e-r5fss
>>>        - ti,j7200-r5fss
>>>        - ti,am64-r5fss
>>> +      - ti,am62-r5fss
>>
>> Some order? Alphabetical, so before am64? Same in other places.
> Agreed, I will update in V3 accordingly.
>>
>>
>>>        - ti,j721s2-r5fss
>>>  
>>>    power-domains:
>>> @@ -80,7 +87,8 @@ patternProperties:
>>>        node representing a TI instantiation of the Arm Cortex R5F core. There
>>>        are some specific integration differences for the IP like the usage of
>>>        a Region Address Translator (RAT) for translating the larger SoC bus
>>> -      addresses into a 32-bit address space for the processor.
>>> +      addresses into a 32-bit address space for the processor. For AM62x,
>>> +      should only define one R5F child node as it has only one core available.
>>>  
>>>        Each R5F core has an associated 64 KB of Tightly-Coupled Memory (TCM)
>>>        internal memories split between two banks - TCMA and TCMB (further
>>> @@ -104,6 +112,7 @@ patternProperties:
>>>            - ti,j721e-r5f
>>>            - ti,j7200-r5f
>>>            - ti,am64-r5f
>>> +          - ti,am62-r5f
>>>            - ti,j721s2-r5f
>>>  
>>>        reg:
>>> @@ -207,20 +216,31 @@ patternProperties:
>>>        - firmware-name
>>>  
>>>      unevaluatedProperties: false
>>
>> Blank line.
> Agreed, I will remove it in V3.
>>
>>> +allOf:
>>> +  - if:
>>> +      properties:
>>> +        compatible:
>>> +          enum:
>>> +            - ti,am64-r5fss
>>> +    then:
>>> +      properties:
>>> +        ti,cluster-mode:
>>> +          enum: [0, 2]
>>> +
>>> +    else:
>>> +      properties:
>>> +        ti,cluster-mode:
>>
>> It's not really valid anymore for ti,am62-r5fss, so this cannot be
>> simple "else".  Instead you need to list all compatibles.
> I agree that the else block is not valid for am62x, but my understanding is that since all the blocks under allOf are checked for validity,
> I thought to add a separate if block only for am62x to set cluster-mode to false [1], which I believe would negate the effect of above else condition for am62x,
> so that we don't have to list all compatibles under separate if blocks.
> 
> Just to verify this, I deliberately set cluster-mode=1 in am62x devicetree and then ran a dtbs-check and got below log : 
> "linux-next/arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-am625-sk.dtb: r5fss@78000000: ti,cluster-mode: False schema does not allow [[1]]"
> 
> and above warning log goes away when i remove the cluster-mode node in am62x devicetree.
> But please do let me know if I am missing something here or there is a better/more proper way to do this.

This was three weeks ago, so hundreds of patches ago, I don't remember
anymore.

Just look at your patch - it is clearly incorrect. You said in the patch
that for compatibles other than ti,am64-r5fss cluster mode is BOTH [0,
1] AND false.

I gave you the way to fix it. Feel free to fix it other ways if it gives
correct result.

Best regards,
Krzysztof
  

Hi Krzysztof,

On 21/12/22 15:06, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 21/12/2022 08:42, Devarsh Thakkar wrote:
>> Hi Krzysztof,
>>
>> Thanks for the review. Please find my response inline.
>>
>> On 30/11/22 20:33, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>> On 30/11/2022 14:40, Devarsh Thakkar wrote:
>>>> AM62 family of devices don't have a R5F cluster, instead
>>>> they have single core DM R5F.
>>>> Add new compatible string ti,am62-r5fss to support this scenario.
>>>>
>>>> When this new compatible is used don't allow cluster-mode
>>>> property usage in device-tree as this implies that there
>>>> is no R5F cluster available and only single R5F core
>>>> is present.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Devarsh Thakkar <devarsht@ti.com>
>>>> ---
>>>> V2: Avoid acronyms, use "Device Manager" instead of "DM"
>>>
>>> Use subject prefixes matching the subsystem (git log --oneline -- ...).
>> Agreed, I will update the prefix as dt-bindings: remoteproc: k3-r5f: in V3.
>>>
>>>> ---
>>>>  .../bindings/remoteproc/ti,k3-r5f-rproc.yaml  | 48 +++++++++++++------
>>>>  1 file changed, 34 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/remoteproc/ti,k3-r5f-rproc.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/remoteproc/ti,k3-r5f-rproc.yaml
>>>> index fb9605f0655b..91357635025a 100644
>>>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/remoteproc/ti,k3-r5f-rproc.yaml
>>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/remoteproc/ti,k3-r5f-rproc.yaml
>>>> @@ -21,6 +21,9 @@ description: |
>>>>    called "Single-CPU" mode, where only Core0 is used, but with ability to use
>>>>    Core1's TCMs as well.
>>>>  
>>>> +  AM62 SoC family support a single R5F core only which runs Device Manager
>>>> +  firmware and can also be used as a remote processor with IPC communication.
>>>> +
>>>>    Each Dual-Core R5F sub-system is represented as a single DTS node
>>>>    representing the cluster, with a pair of child DT nodes representing
>>>>    the individual R5F cores. Each node has a number of required or optional
>>>> @@ -28,6 +31,9 @@ description: |
>>>>    the device management of the remote processor and to communicate with the
>>>>    remote processor.
>>>>  
>>>> +  Since AM62 SoC family only support a single core, there is no cluster-mode
>>>> +  property setting required for it.
>>>> +
>>>>  properties:
>>>>    $nodename:
>>>>      pattern: "^r5fss(@.*)?"
>>>> @@ -38,6 +44,7 @@ properties:
>>>>        - ti,j721e-r5fss
>>>>        - ti,j7200-r5fss
>>>>        - ti,am64-r5fss
>>>> +      - ti,am62-r5fss
>>>
>>> Some order? Alphabetical, so before am64? Same in other places.
>> Agreed, I will update in V3 accordingly.
>>>
>>>
>>>>        - ti,j721s2-r5fss
>>>>  
>>>>    power-domains:
>>>> @@ -80,7 +87,8 @@ patternProperties:
>>>>        node representing a TI instantiation of the Arm Cortex R5F core. There
>>>>        are some specific integration differences for the IP like the usage of
>>>>        a Region Address Translator (RAT) for translating the larger SoC bus
>>>> -      addresses into a 32-bit address space for the processor.
>>>> +      addresses into a 32-bit address space for the processor. For AM62x,
>>>> +      should only define one R5F child node as it has only one core available.
>>>>  
>>>>        Each R5F core has an associated 64 KB of Tightly-Coupled Memory (TCM)
>>>>        internal memories split between two banks - TCMA and TCMB (further
>>>> @@ -104,6 +112,7 @@ patternProperties:
>>>>            - ti,j721e-r5f
>>>>            - ti,j7200-r5f
>>>>            - ti,am64-r5f
>>>> +          - ti,am62-r5f
>>>>            - ti,j721s2-r5f
>>>>  
>>>>        reg:
>>>> @@ -207,20 +216,31 @@ patternProperties:
>>>>        - firmware-name
>>>>  
>>>>      unevaluatedProperties: false
>>>
>>> Blank line.
>> Agreed, I will remove it in V3.
>>>
>>>> +allOf:
>>>> +  - if:
>>>> +      properties:
>>>> +        compatible:
>>>> +          enum:
>>>> +            - ti,am64-r5fss
>>>> +    then:
>>>> +      properties:
>>>> +        ti,cluster-mode:
>>>> +          enum: [0, 2]
>>>> +
>>>> +    else:
>>>> +      properties:
>>>> +        ti,cluster-mode:
>>>
>>> It's not really valid anymore for ti,am62-r5fss, so this cannot be
>>> simple "else".  Instead you need to list all compatibles.
>> I agree that the else block is not valid for am62x, but my understanding is that since all the blocks under allOf are checked for validity,
>> I thought to add a separate if block only for am62x to set cluster-mode to false [1], which I believe would negate the effect of above else condition for am62x,
>> so that we don't have to list all compatibles under separate if blocks.
>>
>> Just to verify this, I deliberately set cluster-mode=1 in am62x devicetree and then ran a dtbs-check and got below log : 
[2]
>> "linux-next/arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-am625-sk.dtb: r5fss@78000000: ti,cluster-mode: False schema does not allow [[1]]"
>>
>> and above warning log goes away when i remove the cluster-mode node in am62x devicetree.
>> But please do let me know if I am missing something here or there is a better/more proper way to do this.
> 
> This was three weeks ago, so hundreds of patches ago, I don't remember
> anymore.
My apologies for the delay.
> 
> Just look at your patch - it is clearly incorrect. You said in the patch
> that for compatibles other than ti,am64-r5fss cluster mode is BOTH [0,
> 1] AND false.

cluster-mode is BOTH [0,1] and false only in case of AM62x as per below snippet, but since it's under allOf the impact of latter will supersede, schema validation will fail even if cluster-mode set to 0 or 1 for am62x due to below snippet as shared in obesrvation log above [2]. 

"  - if:
      properties:
        compatible:
          enum:
            - ti,am62-r5fss
    then:
      properties:
        ti,cluster-mode: false"

Sorry for the back and forth, I just thought to describe more clearly what I was up-to as I thought above should be functionally fine and it also saves us from having separate if blocks for each compatible, but I am open to adding separate if blocks as you earlier suggested if that seems more cleaner solution.

Best Regards,
Devarsh
> 
> I gave you the way to fix it. Feel free to fix it other ways if it gives
> correct result.
> 
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof
>
  

On 21/12/2022 17:29, Devarsh Thakkar wrote:
>>
>> Just look at your patch - it is clearly incorrect. You said in the patch
>> that for compatibles other than ti,am64-r5fss cluster mode is BOTH [0,
>> 1] AND false.
> 
> cluster-mode is BOTH [0,1] and false only in case of AM62x as per below snippet

Yes, for that variant you have conflicting approach.

, but since it's under allOf the impact of latter will supersede, schema
validation will fail even if cluster-mode set to 0 or 1 for am62x due to
below snippet as shared in obesrvation log above [2].

Yeah, but the code is confusing. So again - you are saying with allOf
that both conditions are applicable. Your intentions of superseding do
not matter here - you said that allOf conditions must be taken into
account. These conditions can be reversed any time, don't you think?


> 
> "  - if:
>       properties:
>         compatible:
>           enum:
>             - ti,am62-r5fss
>     then:
>       properties:
>         ti,cluster-mode: false"
> 
> Sorry for the back and forth, I just thought to describe more clearly what I was up-to as I thought above should be functionally fine and it also saves us from having separate if blocks for each compatible, but I am open to adding separate if blocks as you earlier suggested if that seems more cleaner solution.

You need to fix your email client to properly wrap messages.

Best regards,
Krzysztof