On January 9, 2025 thus sayeth Beleswar Prasad Padhi: > Hi Bryan! > > On 08/01/25 19:46, Bryan Brattlof wrote: > > Hi Beleswar! > > > > On January 8, 2025 thus sayeth Beleswar Padhi: > > > Include k3_rproc.env to access rproc boot commands and specify rproc > > > firmware names for adding remoteproc support in J722S SoCs. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Beleswar Padhi <[email protected]> > > > --- > > > This patch is independent and puts the environment in place to boot remote > > > processors at U-Boot stage. > > > > > > However, for successfully loading the firmwares into remote cores, rproc > > > DT node definitions are required. These DT changes have been merged into > > > Linux and available with v6.12 tag[0]. Once the DT Sync happens in U-Boot, > > > remote processors can be probed and booted with the help of env commands > > > enabled with this patch. > > > > > > Sample Boot Test logs after manually adding DT nodes in U-Boot: > > > https://gist.github.com/3V3RYONE/0b5c7df5b5c88d2a2f273b6a04a3dd46 > > > > > > [0]: https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/ > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Beleswar > > > > > > board/ti/j722s/j722s.env | 6 ++++++ > > > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+) > > > > > > diff --git a/board/ti/j722s/j722s.env b/board/ti/j722s/j722s.env > > > index f8b6aff2c2f..10d62034e1a 100644 > > > --- a/board/ti/j722s/j722s.env > > > +++ b/board/ti/j722s/j722s.env > > > @@ -1,6 +1,10 @@ > > > #include <env/ti/ti_common.env> > > > #include <env/ti/mmc.env> > > > +#if CONFIG_CMD_REMOTEPROC > > > +#include <env/ti/k3_rproc.env> > > > +#endif > > > + > > > name_kern=Image > > > console=ttyS2,115200n8 > > > args_all=setenv optargs ${optargs} earlycon=ns16550a,mmio32,0x02800000 > > > @@ -13,3 +17,5 @@ mmcdev=1 > > > bootpart=1:2 > > > bootdir=/boot > > > rd_spec=- > > > + > > > +rproc_fw_binaries= 0 /lib/firmware/j722s-mcu-r5f0_0-fw 2 > > > /lib/firmware/j722s-main-r5f0_0-fw 3 /lib/firmware/j722s-c71_0-fw 4 > > > /lib/firmware/j722s-c71_1-fw > > For SE devices do these firmware have that *-sig suffix? > > > Yes, for all K3 SE devices, the "*-sec" suffix is appended to the existing > firmware paths[0]. > > > My thinking is > > this seems fairly specific to yocto with other distributions like debian > > or QNX will have different names or paths. Should this be put in the env > > that yocto builds? > > > Debian currently uses the same firmware names like Yocto. But yes, thinking > about multi-distro, we can leave the default firmware paths as empty, and > leave it to the user to override these paths according to their distro. That > will have to be done for all K3 devices, as currently all those define Yocto > based firmware paths in the U-Boot board environment. > > However, if we leave the default `rproc_fw_binaries` as empty, rproc boot > will fail silently without complaining, which could be confusing to the > user. Whereas, if we have Yocto (or any other distro's) firmware paths as > default, rproc boot will complain "No such file or directory" and fail when > using with a different distro. What are your thoughts? > > [0]: > https://source.denx.de/u-boot/u-boot/-/blob/master/include/env/ti/k3_rproc.env?ref_type=heads#L18
Yeah it puts a dependency on U-Boot to keep up any time debian or yocto wishes to change where they put the firmware on their rootfs in future releases as well :/ Ideally all of the scripting should go into the distros using them and let U-Boot stay distro neutral. Unfortunately I don't see a clean way to do this unless yocto and debian take all of the env scripts so we can rip them out here. A problem for another day though Reviewed-by: Bryan Brattlof <[email protected]> Thanks Beleswar! ~Bryan
