There is one case where 400ms is not sufficient for loading the
system firmware:
- System firmware is not signed with rsa degenerate key.
- ROM loading the sysfw directly from SPI flash which is in memory
mapped mode.
The above scenario is definitely not desired in production use cases
as it effects boot time. But still keeping this support as this is
a valid boot scenario.
Signed-off-by: Lokesh Vutla <lokeshvutla@ti.com>
Add support for K3 based remoteproc driver that
communicates with TISCI to start start a remote processor.
Reviewed-by: Tom Rini <trini@konsulko.com>
Signed-off-by: Lokesh Vutla <lokeshvutla@ti.com>
K3 specific SoCs have a dedicated microcontroller for doing
resource management. Any HLOS/firmware on compute clusters should
load a firmware to this microcontroller before accessing any resource.
Adding support for loading this firmware.
After the K3 system controller got loaded with firmware and started
up it sends out a boot notification message through the secure proxy
facility using the TI SCI protocol. Intercept and receive this message
through the rproc start operation which will need to get invoked
explicitly after the firmware got loaded.
Signed-off-by: Lokesh Vutla <lokeshvutla@ti.com>
Signed-off-by: Andreas Dannenberg <dannenberg@ti.com>
Reviewed-by: Tom Rini <trini@konsulko.com>
Existing rproc_init() api tries to initialize all available
remoteproc devices. This will fail when there is dependency
among available remoteprocs. So introduce a separate api
that allows to initialize remoteprocs individually based
on id.
Reviewed-by: Tom Rini <trini@konsulko.com>
Signed-off-by: Lokesh Vutla <lokeshvutla@ti.com>
When U-Boot started using SPDX tags we were among the early adopters and
there weren't a lot of other examples to borrow from. So we picked the
area of the file that usually had a full license text and replaced it
with an appropriate SPDX-License-Identifier: entry. Since then, the
Linux Kernel has adopted SPDX tags and they place it as the very first
line in a file (except where shebangs are used, then it's second line)
and with slightly different comment styles than us.
In part due to community overlap, in part due to better tag visibility
and in part for other minor reasons, switch over to that style.
This commit changes all instances where we have a single declared
license in the tag as both the before and after are identical in tag
contents. There's also a few places where I found we did not have a tag
and have introduced one.
Signed-off-by: Tom Rini <trini@konsulko.com>
At present devices use a simple integer offset to record the device tree
node associated with the device. In preparation for supporting a live
device tree, which uses a node pointer instead, refactor existing code to
access this field through an inline function.
Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>
Many TI System on Chip (SoC) solutions do have a dedicated
microcontroller for doing power management functionality. These include
the AM335x, AM437x, Keystone K2G SoCs. The functionality provided by
these microcontrollers and the communication mechanisms vary very
widely. However, we are able to consolidate some basic functionality to
be generic enough starting with K2G SoC family. Introduce a basic remote
proc driver to support these microcontrollers. In fact, on SoCs starting
with K2G, basic power management functions are primarily accessible for
the High Level Operating Systems(HLOS) via these microcontroller solutions.
Hence, having these started at a bootloader level is pretty much
mandatory.
Signed-off-by: Nishanth Menon <nm@ti.com>
Reviewed-by: Tom Rini <trini@konsulko.com>
Neither uc_pdata->name nor check_name are supposed to be NULL in
_rproc_name_is_unique(). if uc_pdata->name is NULL, we are not
intialized yet, however if check_data is NULL, we do not have
proper data. Further, if either were NULL, strlen will crap out
while attempting to derefence NULL.
Instead, just check if either of these are NULL and bail out.
This should also fix the following coverity scan warnings:
*** CID 132281: Null pointer dereferences (FORWARD_NULL)
/drivers/remoteproc/rproc-uclass.c: 73 in _rproc_name_is_unique()
Reported-by: Tom Rini <trini@konsulko.com>
Signed-off-by: Nishanth Menon <nm@ti.com>
Introduce a dummy driver for sandbox that allows us to verify basic
functionality. This is not meant to do anything functional - but is
more or less meant as a framework plumbing debug helper.
The sandbox remoteproc driver maintains absolutey no states and is a
simple driver which just is filled with empty hooks. Idea being to give
an approximate idea to implement own remoteproc driver using this as a
template.
Reviewed-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>
Signed-off-by: Nishanth Menon <nm@ti.com>
Acked-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>
Many System on Chip(SoC) solutions are complex with multiple processors
on the same die dedicated to either general purpose of specialized
functions. Many examples do exist in today's SoCs from various vendors.
Typical examples are micro controllers such as an ARM M3/M0 doing a
offload of specific function such as event integration or power
management or controlling camera etc.
Traditionally, the responsibility of loading up such a processor with a
firmware and communication has been with a High Level Operating
System(HLOS) such as Linux. However, there exists classes of products
where Linux would need to expect services from such a processor or the
delay of Linux and operating system being able to load up such a
firmware is unacceptable.
To address these needs, we need some minimal capability to load such a
system and ensure it is started prior to an Operating System(Linux or
any other) is started up.
NOTE: This is NOT meant to be a solve-all solution, instead, it tries to
address certain class of SoCs and products that need such a solution.
A very simple model is introduced here as part of the initial support
that supports microcontrollers with internal memory (no MMU, no
execution from external memory, or specific image format needs). This
basic framework can then (hopefully) be extensible to other complex SoC
processor support as need be.
Reviewed-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>
Signed-off-by: Nishanth Menon <nm@ti.com>
Acked-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>
