Hi Mathieu, On 7/8/26 9:23 AM, Mathieu Poirier wrote: > On Tue, Jul 07, 2026 at 10:59:55AM +0200, Michal Simek wrote: >> >> >> On 7/3/26 18:39, Mathieu Poirier wrote: >>> Hi Ben, >>> >>> On Mon, Jun 29, 2026 at 09:40:03AM -0700, Ben Levinsky wrote: >>>> Add a remoteproc driver for AMD soft-core processor subsystems >>>> instantiated in programmable logic and using dual-port BRAM for >>>> firmware storage and execution. >>>> >>>> The driver parses the firmware memory window from the remoteproc device >>>> node's reg property, interprets that address and size in the >>>> processor-local address space, and then uses standard devicetree >>>> address translation through the parent bus ranges property to obtain >>>> the corresponding Linux-visible system physical address. >>>> >>>> The resulting translated region is registered as the executable >>>> remoteproc carveout and coredump segment. >>>> >>>> The processor is controlled through an active-low reset GPIO and a >>>> subsystem clock. The clock is enabled before reset is released, and the >>>> processor is kept in reset until firmware loading completes. >>>> >>>> The firmware-name property is optional, allowing firmware to be >>>> assigned later through the remoteproc framework. Firmware images >>>> without a resource table are also accepted. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Ben Levinsky <[email protected]> >>>> --- >>>> drivers/remoteproc/Kconfig | 11 ++ >>>> drivers/remoteproc/Makefile | 1 + >>>> drivers/remoteproc/amd_bram_rproc.c | 213 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >>>> 3 files changed, 225 insertions(+) >>>> create mode 100644 drivers/remoteproc/amd_bram_rproc.c >>>> >>>> diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/Kconfig b/drivers/remoteproc/Kconfig >>>> index c521c744e7db..58fa566b609f 100644 >>>> --- a/drivers/remoteproc/Kconfig >>>> +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/Kconfig >>>> @@ -23,6 +23,17 @@ config REMOTEPROC_CDEV >>>> It's safe to say N if you don't want to use this interface. >>>> +config AMD_BRAM_REMOTEPROC >>>> + tristate "AMD BRAM-based remoteproc support" >>>> + depends on OF && COMMON_CLK && (GPIOLIB || COMPILE_TEST) >>>> + help >>>> + Say y or m here to support a BRAM-based remote processor managed >>>> + through the remoteproc framework. >>>> + >>>> + The processor is controlled through a reset GPIO and clock. >>>> + >>> >>> This last sentence doesn't belong here - please remove. Sure will do. >>> >>> Looking at the bindings and this Kconfig I wonder why the emphasis of the >>> naming >>> convention, i.e "BRAM-based remoteproc" is placed on the kind of memory the >>> remote processor is connected to rather than the remote processor itself. >>> >>> Wouldn't it be better to have something like "AMD MicroBlaze/V remote >>> processor"? What happens when we get another AMD softcore that is >>> completely >>> different than MicroBlaze/V that is also connected to the same type of >>> memory? >>> >>> I'm good with the implemenation, I just wonder about the name... >> >> We started with very generic amd,bram-proc compatible string and then based >> on discussion >> https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/ > > Thanks for the link, it provides useful context. > >> we got recommendation to treat is as soc specific instead of generic. >> Which give us back to origin point if driver should be more soc specific or >> not. >> >> I think no issue with AMD prefix. > > Agreed. > >> >> BRAM - that's technology used for access. And I see value in symbol to state >> it because access to different memory can be done differently too. >> > > Agreed. > >> Shouldn't be there any soc string? This is for zynqmp, versal* SOCs that's >> why hard to choose which one. >> > > Why not just adding a Zynqmp somewhere in there? But admittedly, the relation > between Zynqmp and MicroBlaze/V is unknown to me. > >> The driver is written in very generic way that if there is arm, mips, ppc, >> different risc-v or others access will be the same. Our primary target is >> obviously MicroBlaze/V and I don't think it is a problem to change >> description to just reference them even it is technically possible to >> connect different cpus too. >> >> Is this enough? >> >> - tristate "AMD BRAM-based remoteproc support" >> + tristate "AMD MicroBlaze/V BRAM-based remoteproc support" > > Yes, that would be just fine. "AMD Zynqmp BRAM-based remoteproc support" would > also work. > >> >> Are you fine with AMD_BRAM_REMOTEPROC symbol name? > > AMD_MBV_BRAM_REMOTEPROC or AMD_ZQ_BRAM_REMOTEPROC Ok will use AMD_MBV_BRAM_REMOTEPROC
Thank you Ben > > I'm good with anything that is slightly more descriptive, just pick the one > that > makes the most sense. > >> >> Thanks, >> Michal
