Hi,
On 09/09/23 16:26, Roger Quadros wrote:
On 08/09/2023 14:05, Apurva Nandan wrote:
From: Hari Nagalla hnagalla@ti.com
The K3 J784S4 SoCs have four dual-core R5F subsystems, one in MCU voltage domain and the other three in MAIN voltage domain. These R5F clusters are similar to the R5F clusters in J7200 and J721S2 SoCs.
Extend support to the R5F clusters for J784S4 with J721S2 compatible string.
Signed-off-by: Hari Nagalla hnagalla@ti.com Signed-off-by: Apurva Nandan a-nandan@ti.com
drivers/remoteproc/ti_k3_r5f_rproc.c | 6 ++++-- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/ti_k3_r5f_rproc.c b/drivers/remoteproc/ti_k3_r5f_rproc.c index 6f3e12d915..631e548dcc 100644 --- a/drivers/remoteproc/ti_k3_r5f_rproc.c +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/ti_k3_r5f_rproc.c @@ -855,7 +855,7 @@ static const struct k3_r5f_ip_data k3_data = { .tcm_ecc_autoinit = false, };
-static const struct k3_r5f_ip_data j7200_data = { +static const struct k3_r5f_ip_data j7200_j721s2_data = {
No need to rename this.
Okay
.tcm_is_double = true, .tcm_ecc_autoinit = true, }; @@ -863,7 +863,8 @@ static const struct k3_r5f_ip_data j7200_data = { static const struct udevice_id k3_r5f_rproc_ids[] = { { .compatible = "ti,am654-r5f", .data = (ulong)&k3_data, }, { .compatible = "ti,j721e-r5f", .data = (ulong)&k3_data, },
- { .compatible = "ti,j7200-r5f", .data = (ulong)&j7200_data, },
- { .compatible = "ti,j7200-r5f", .data = (ulong)&j7200_j721s2_data, },
- { .compatible = "ti,j721s2-r5f", .data = (ulong)&j7200_j721s2_data, },
Where is DT binding documentation for this?
Don't you need compatible for ti,j728s4-r5f?
We don't actually need a new compatible for j784s4 r5f, as it is the same IP as on j721s2 and j7200. It uses same ip data in the driver as well.
{} };
@@ -901,6 +902,7 @@ static const struct udevice_id k3_r5fss_ids[] = { { .compatible = "ti,am654-r5fss"}, { .compatible = "ti,j721e-r5fss"}, { .compatible = "ti,j7200-r5fss"},
- { .compatible = "ti,j721s2-r5fss"}, {} };