| Message ID | 20201216165239.2744-1-grzegorz.jaszczyk@linaro.org (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| Headers | show |
| Series | Introduce PRU remoteproc consumer API | expand |
> Please see the individual patches for exact changes in each patch, following is > the only change from v1: > - Change the 'prus' property name to 'ti,prus' as suggested by Rob Herring, > which influences patch #1 and patch #2 It looks like "soc: ti: pruss: Add pruss_{request, release}_mem_region() API" was also dropped in v2. Was this intentional?
Hi David, On 1/4/21 2:11 PM, David Lechner wrote: > >> Please see the individual patches for exact changes in each patch, following is >> the only change from v1: >> - Change the 'prus' property name to 'ti,prus' as suggested by Rob Herring, >> which influences patch #1 and patch #2 > > It looks like "soc: ti: pruss: Add pruss_{request, release}_mem_region() API" > was also dropped in v2. Was this intentional? No, it is not dropped. That patch is part of a different similarly titled "Introduce PRU platform consumer API" series [1], which is dependent on this series and is against a different folder (maintainer): drivers/soc/ti. regards Suman [1] https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-remoteproc/list/?series=400787
On Wed, Dec 16, 2020 at 05:52:34PM +0100, Grzegorz Jaszczyk wrote: > Hi All, > > The Programmable Real-Time Unit and Industrial Communication Subsystem > (PRU-ICSS or simply PRUSS) on various TI SoCs consists of dual 32-bit > RISC cores (Programmable Real-Time Units, or PRUs) for program execution. > > There are 3 foundation components for PRUSS subsystem: the PRUSS platform > driver, the PRUSS INTC driver and the PRUSS remoteproc driver. All were > already merged and can be found under: > 1) drivers/soc/ti/pruss.c > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/ti/ti,pruss.yaml > 2) drivers/irqchip/irq-pruss-intc.c > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/interrupt-controller/ti,pruss-intc.yaml > 3) drivers/remoteproc/pru_rproc.c > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/remoteproc/ti,pru-rproc.yaml > > The programmable nature of the PRUs provide flexibility to implement custom > peripheral interfaces, fast real-time responses, or specialized data handling. > Example of a PRU consumer drivers will be: > - Software UART over PRUSS > - PRU-ICSS Ethernet EMAC > > In order to make usage of common PRU resources and allow the consumer drivers to > configure the PRU hardware for specific usage the PRU API is introduced. > > Patch #3 of this series depends on one not merged remteproc related patch [1]. > > Please see the individual patches for exact changes in each patch, following is > the only change from v1: > - Change the 'prus' property name to 'ti,prus' as suggested by Rob Herring, > which influences patch #1 and patch #2 > > [1] https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-remoteproc/patch/20201121030156.22857-3-s-anna@ti.com/ > > Best regards, > Grzegorz > > Roger Quadros (1): > remoteproc: pru: Add pru_rproc_set_ctable() function > > Suman Anna (2): > dt-bindings: remoteproc: Add PRU consumer bindings > remoteproc: pru: Deny rproc sysfs ops for PRU client driven boots > > Tero Kristo (2): > remoteproc: pru: Add APIs to get and put the PRU cores > remoteproc: pru: Configure firmware based on client setup > > .../bindings/remoteproc/ti,pru-consumer.yaml | 64 +++++ > drivers/remoteproc/pru_rproc.c | 221 +++++++++++++++++- > include/linux/pruss.h | 78 +++++++ This patchset is giving checkpatch.pl errors and as such will not go further with this revision. > 3 files changed, 360 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/remoteproc/ti,pru-consumer.yaml > create mode 100644 include/linux/pruss.h > > -- > 2.29.0 >
Hi Mathieu, On 1/6/21 5:27 PM, Mathieu Poirier wrote: > On Wed, Dec 16, 2020 at 05:52:34PM +0100, Grzegorz Jaszczyk wrote: >> Hi All, >> >> The Programmable Real-Time Unit and Industrial Communication Subsystem >> (PRU-ICSS or simply PRUSS) on various TI SoCs consists of dual 32-bit >> RISC cores (Programmable Real-Time Units, or PRUs) for program execution. >> >> There are 3 foundation components for PRUSS subsystem: the PRUSS platform >> driver, the PRUSS INTC driver and the PRUSS remoteproc driver. All were >> already merged and can be found under: >> 1) drivers/soc/ti/pruss.c >> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/ti/ti,pruss.yaml >> 2) drivers/irqchip/irq-pruss-intc.c >> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/interrupt-controller/ti,pruss-intc.yaml >> 3) drivers/remoteproc/pru_rproc.c >> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/remoteproc/ti,pru-rproc.yaml >> >> The programmable nature of the PRUs provide flexibility to implement custom >> peripheral interfaces, fast real-time responses, or specialized data handling. >> Example of a PRU consumer drivers will be: >> - Software UART over PRUSS >> - PRU-ICSS Ethernet EMAC >> >> In order to make usage of common PRU resources and allow the consumer drivers to >> configure the PRU hardware for specific usage the PRU API is introduced. >> >> Patch #3 of this series depends on one not merged remteproc related patch [1]. >> >> Please see the individual patches for exact changes in each patch, following is >> the only change from v1: >> - Change the 'prus' property name to 'ti,prus' as suggested by Rob Herring, >> which influences patch #1 and patch #2 >> >> [1] https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-remoteproc/patch/20201121030156.22857-3-s-anna@ti.com/ >> >> Best regards, >> Grzegorz >> >> Roger Quadros (1): >> remoteproc: pru: Add pru_rproc_set_ctable() function >> >> Suman Anna (2): >> dt-bindings: remoteproc: Add PRU consumer bindings >> remoteproc: pru: Deny rproc sysfs ops for PRU client driven boots >> >> Tero Kristo (2): >> remoteproc: pru: Add APIs to get and put the PRU cores >> remoteproc: pru: Configure firmware based on client setup >> >> .../bindings/remoteproc/ti,pru-consumer.yaml | 64 +++++ >> drivers/remoteproc/pru_rproc.c | 221 +++++++++++++++++- >> include/linux/pruss.h | 78 +++++++ > > This patchset is giving checkpatch.pl errors and as such will not go further > with this revision. Yeah, I am aware of those. Greg has intentionally skipped the checkpatch warnings around ENOTSUPP, based on some similar discussion on a different patch, https://lkml.org/lkml/2020/11/10/764. Let me know if you prefer that we change these to EOPNOTSUPP. regards Suman > >> 3 files changed, 360 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) >> create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/remoteproc/ti,pru-consumer.yaml >> create mode 100644 include/linux/pruss.h >> >> -- >> 2.29.0 >>
On Wed, Jan 06, 2021 at 06:03:25PM -0600, Suman Anna wrote: > Hi Mathieu, > > On 1/6/21 5:27 PM, Mathieu Poirier wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 16, 2020 at 05:52:34PM +0100, Grzegorz Jaszczyk wrote: > >> Hi All, > >> > >> The Programmable Real-Time Unit and Industrial Communication Subsystem > >> (PRU-ICSS or simply PRUSS) on various TI SoCs consists of dual 32-bit > >> RISC cores (Programmable Real-Time Units, or PRUs) for program execution. > >> > >> There are 3 foundation components for PRUSS subsystem: the PRUSS platform > >> driver, the PRUSS INTC driver and the PRUSS remoteproc driver. All were > >> already merged and can be found under: > >> 1) drivers/soc/ti/pruss.c > >> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/ti/ti,pruss.yaml > >> 2) drivers/irqchip/irq-pruss-intc.c > >> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/interrupt-controller/ti,pruss-intc.yaml > >> 3) drivers/remoteproc/pru_rproc.c > >> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/remoteproc/ti,pru-rproc.yaml > >> > >> The programmable nature of the PRUs provide flexibility to implement custom > >> peripheral interfaces, fast real-time responses, or specialized data handling. > >> Example of a PRU consumer drivers will be: > >> - Software UART over PRUSS > >> - PRU-ICSS Ethernet EMAC > >> > >> In order to make usage of common PRU resources and allow the consumer drivers to > >> configure the PRU hardware for specific usage the PRU API is introduced. > >> > >> Patch #3 of this series depends on one not merged remteproc related patch [1]. > >> > >> Please see the individual patches for exact changes in each patch, following is > >> the only change from v1: > >> - Change the 'prus' property name to 'ti,prus' as suggested by Rob Herring, > >> which influences patch #1 and patch #2 > >> > >> [1] https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-remoteproc/patch/20201121030156.22857-3-s-anna@ti.com/ > >> > >> Best regards, > >> Grzegorz > >> > >> Roger Quadros (1): > >> remoteproc: pru: Add pru_rproc_set_ctable() function > >> > >> Suman Anna (2): > >> dt-bindings: remoteproc: Add PRU consumer bindings > >> remoteproc: pru: Deny rproc sysfs ops for PRU client driven boots > >> > >> Tero Kristo (2): > >> remoteproc: pru: Add APIs to get and put the PRU cores > >> remoteproc: pru: Configure firmware based on client setup > >> > >> .../bindings/remoteproc/ti,pru-consumer.yaml | 64 +++++ > >> drivers/remoteproc/pru_rproc.c | 221 +++++++++++++++++- > >> include/linux/pruss.h | 78 +++++++ > > > > This patchset is giving checkpatch.pl errors and as such will not go further > > with this revision. > > Yeah, I am aware of those. Greg has intentionally skipped the checkpatch > warnings around ENOTSUPP, based on some similar discussion on a different patch, > https://lkml.org/lkml/2020/11/10/764. I only see input from Andy and Lars in the thread you point out, nothing from Greg. I have also taken a look at the patch [1] that made checkpatch complain about ENOTSUPP. From what I see in that commit log the goal is to prevent new additions of ENOTSUPP to the kernel. Please modify and resend, otherwise I'm sure someone will send another patch to fix it before the end of the cycle. Thanks, Mathieu [1]. 6b9ea5ff5abd checkpatch: warn about uses of ENOTSUPP > > Let me know if you prefer that we change these to EOPNOTSUPP. > > regards > Suman > > > > >> 3 files changed, 360 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > >> create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/remoteproc/ti,pru-consumer.yaml > >> create mode 100644 include/linux/pruss.h > >> > >> -- > >> 2.29.0 > >> >
On 1/7/21 4:44 PM, Mathieu Poirier wrote: > On Wed, Jan 06, 2021 at 06:03:25PM -0600, Suman Anna wrote: >> Hi Mathieu, >> >> On 1/6/21 5:27 PM, Mathieu Poirier wrote: >>> On Wed, Dec 16, 2020 at 05:52:34PM +0100, Grzegorz Jaszczyk wrote: >>>> Hi All, >>>> >>>> The Programmable Real-Time Unit and Industrial Communication Subsystem >>>> (PRU-ICSS or simply PRUSS) on various TI SoCs consists of dual 32-bit >>>> RISC cores (Programmable Real-Time Units, or PRUs) for program execution. >>>> >>>> There are 3 foundation components for PRUSS subsystem: the PRUSS platform >>>> driver, the PRUSS INTC driver and the PRUSS remoteproc driver. All were >>>> already merged and can be found under: >>>> 1) drivers/soc/ti/pruss.c >>>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/ti/ti,pruss.yaml >>>> 2) drivers/irqchip/irq-pruss-intc.c >>>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/interrupt-controller/ti,pruss-intc.yaml >>>> 3) drivers/remoteproc/pru_rproc.c >>>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/remoteproc/ti,pru-rproc.yaml >>>> >>>> The programmable nature of the PRUs provide flexibility to implement custom >>>> peripheral interfaces, fast real-time responses, or specialized data handling. >>>> Example of a PRU consumer drivers will be: >>>> - Software UART over PRUSS >>>> - PRU-ICSS Ethernet EMAC >>>> >>>> In order to make usage of common PRU resources and allow the consumer drivers to >>>> configure the PRU hardware for specific usage the PRU API is introduced. >>>> >>>> Patch #3 of this series depends on one not merged remteproc related patch [1]. >>>> >>>> Please see the individual patches for exact changes in each patch, following is >>>> the only change from v1: >>>> - Change the 'prus' property name to 'ti,prus' as suggested by Rob Herring, >>>> which influences patch #1 and patch #2 >>>> >>>> [1] https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-remoteproc/patch/20201121030156.22857-3-s-anna@ti.com/ >>>> >>>> Best regards, >>>> Grzegorz >>>> >>>> Roger Quadros (1): >>>> remoteproc: pru: Add pru_rproc_set_ctable() function >>>> >>>> Suman Anna (2): >>>> dt-bindings: remoteproc: Add PRU consumer bindings >>>> remoteproc: pru: Deny rproc sysfs ops for PRU client driven boots >>>> >>>> Tero Kristo (2): >>>> remoteproc: pru: Add APIs to get and put the PRU cores >>>> remoteproc: pru: Configure firmware based on client setup >>>> >>>> .../bindings/remoteproc/ti,pru-consumer.yaml | 64 +++++ >>>> drivers/remoteproc/pru_rproc.c | 221 +++++++++++++++++- >>>> include/linux/pruss.h | 78 +++++++ >>> >>> This patchset is giving checkpatch.pl errors and as such will not go further >>> with this revision. >> >> Yeah, I am aware of those. Greg has intentionally skipped the checkpatch >> warnings around ENOTSUPP, based on some similar discussion on a different patch, >> https://lkml.org/lkml/2020/11/10/764. > > I only see input from Andy and Lars in the thread you point out, nothing from > Greg. I have also taken a look at the patch [1] that made checkpatch complain > about ENOTSUPP. From what I see in that commit log the goal is to prevent new > additions of ENOTSUPP to the kernel. > > Please modify and resend, otherwise I'm sure someone will send another patch to > fix it before the end of the cycle. Yeah ok. I will send out a v3. regards Suman > > Thanks, > Mathieu > > [1]. 6b9ea5ff5abd checkpatch: warn about uses of ENOTSUPP >> >> Let me know if you prefer that we change these to EOPNOTSUPP. >> >> regards >> Suman >> >>> >>>> 3 files changed, 360 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) >>>> create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/remoteproc/ti,pru-consumer.yaml >>>> create mode 100644 include/linux/pruss.h >>>> >>>> -- >>>> 2.29.0 >>>> >>
Hi Suman, Mathieu, On 1/7/21 2:49 PM, Suman Anna wrote: > On 1/7/21 4:44 PM, Mathieu Poirier wrote: >> On Wed, Jan 06, 2021 at 06:03:25PM -0600, Suman Anna wrote: >>> Hi Mathieu, >>> [...] >> I only see input from Andy and Lars in the thread you point out, nothing from >> Greg. I have also taken a look at the patch [1] that made checkpatch complain >> about ENOTSUPP. From what I see in that commit log the goal is to prevent new >> additions of ENOTSUPP to the kernel. >> >> Please modify and resend, otherwise I'm sure someone will send another patch to >> fix it before the end of the cycle. > > Yeah ok. I will send out a v3. > I haven't seen v3 of this series yet. Please post it if you would like to include it for 5.12. Regards, Santosh
Hi Santosh, On 1/24/21 10:34 PM, santosh.shilimkar@oracle.com wrote: > Hi Suman, Mathieu, > > On 1/7/21 2:49 PM, Suman Anna wrote: >> On 1/7/21 4:44 PM, Mathieu Poirier wrote: >>> On Wed, Jan 06, 2021 at 06:03:25PM -0600, Suman Anna wrote: >>>> Hi Mathieu, >>>> > [...] >>> I only see input from Andy and Lars in the thread you point out, nothing from >>> Greg. I have also taken a look at the patch [1] that made checkpatch complain >>> about ENOTSUPP. From what I see in that commit log the goal is to prevent new >>> additions of ENOTSUPP to the kernel. >>> >>> Please modify and resend, otherwise I'm sure someone will send another patch to >>> fix it before the end of the cycle. >> >> Yeah ok. I will send out a v3. >> > I haven't seen v3 of this series yet. Please post it > if you would like to include it for 5.12. This series is dependent on couple of patches that would have to come through the remoteproc tree first, and I need to post the next versions of those as well. So, let me sort out those first. You can drop this from your queue for 5.12. regards Suman
On Jan 25, 2021, at 7:43 AM, Suman Anna <s-anna@ti.com> wrote: > > Hi Santosh, > > On 1/24/21 10:34 PM, santosh.shilimkar@oracle.com wrote: >> Hi Suman, Mathieu, >> >> On 1/7/21 2:49 PM, Suman Anna wrote: >>> On 1/7/21 4:44 PM, Mathieu Poirier wrote: >>>> On Wed, Jan 06, 2021 at 06:03:25PM -0600, Suman Anna wrote: >>>>> Hi Mathieu, >>>>> >> [...] >>>> I only see input from Andy and Lars in the thread you point out, nothing from >>>> Greg. I have also taken a look at the patch [1] that made checkpatch complain >>>> about ENOTSUPP. From what I see in that commit log the goal is to prevent new >>>> additions of ENOTSUPP to the kernel. >>>> >>>> Please modify and resend, otherwise I'm sure someone will send another patch to >>>> fix it before the end of the cycle. >>> >>> Yeah ok. I will send out a v3. >>> >> I haven't seen v3 of this series yet. Please post it >> if you would like to include it for 5.12. > > This series is dependent on couple of patches that would have to come through > the remoteproc tree first, and I need to post the next versions of those as > well. So, let me sort out those first. You can drop this from your queue for 5.12. > Sounds good. Regards, Santosh
HI all, Am Di., 26. Jan. 2021 um 06:58 Uhr schrieb Suman Anna <s-anna@ti.com>: > > Hi Santosh, > > On 1/24/21 10:34 PM, santosh.shilimkar@oracle.com wrote: > > Hi Suman, Mathieu, > > > > On 1/7/21 2:49 PM, Suman Anna wrote: > >> On 1/7/21 4:44 PM, Mathieu Poirier wrote: > >>> On Wed, Jan 06, 2021 at 06:03:25PM -0600, Suman Anna wrote: > >>>> Hi Mathieu, > >>>> > > [...] > >>> I only see input from Andy and Lars in the thread you point out, nothing from > >>> Greg. I have also taken a look at the patch [1] that made checkpatch complain > >>> about ENOTSUPP. From what I see in that commit log the goal is to prevent new > >>> additions of ENOTSUPP to the kernel. > >>> > >>> Please modify and resend, otherwise I'm sure someone will send another patch to > >>> fix it before the end of the cycle. > >> > >> Yeah ok. I will send out a v3. > >> > > I haven't seen v3 of this series yet. Please post it > > if you would like to include it for 5.12. > > This series is dependent on couple of patches that would have to come through > the remoteproc tree first, and I need to post the next versions of those as > well. So, let me sort out those first. You can drop this from your queue for 5.12. > Is there any update on this patch series?