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. > > > > 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 I'm good with anything that is slightly more descriptive, just pick the one that makes the most sense. > > Thanks, > Michal
