[PATCH v3 02/10] arm: k3: Add support for loading non linux remote cores

Andrew F. Davis afd at ti.com
Wed Jan 22 17:25:30 CET 2020


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-keerthy at ti.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Lokesh Vutla <lokeshvutla at ti.com>
>>> [Guard start_non_linux_remote_cores under CONFIG_FS_LOADER]
>>> Signed-off-by: Andreas Dannenberg <dannenberg at 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?


>>
>>
>>> +        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
>>>


More information about the U-Boot mailing list