[PATCH v3 02/10] arm64: dts: rockchip: Add nodes for NPU and its MMU to rk3588s

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On 19/05/2025 10:27, Tomeu Vizoso wrote:
> On Mon, May 19, 2025 at 8:08 AM Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk at kernel.org> wrote:
>>
>> On 16/05/2025 18:53, Tomeu Vizoso wrote:
>>> See Chapter 36 "RKNN" from the RK3588 TRM (Part 1).
>>>
>>> This is a derivative of NVIDIA's NVDLA, but with its own front-end
>>> processor.
>>>
>>> The IP is divided in three cores, programmed independently. The first
>>> core though is special, requiring to be powered on before any of the
>>> others can be used.
>>>
>>> The IOMMU of the first core is also special in that it has two subunits
>>> (read/write?) that need to be programmed in sync.
>>>
>>> v2:
>>> - Have one device for each NPU core (Sebastian Reichel)
>>> - Have one device for each IOMMU (Sebastian Reichel)
>>> - Correctly sort nodes (Diederik de Haas)
>>> - Add rockchip,iommu compatible to IOMMU nodes (Sebastian Reichel)
>>>
>>> v3:
>>> - Adapt to a split of the register block in the DT bindings (Nicolas
>>>   Frattaroli)
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Tomeu Vizoso <tomeu at tomeuvizoso.net>
>>> ---
>>>  arch/arm64/boot/dts/rockchip/rk3588-base.dtsi | 85 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>  1 file changed, 85 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/rockchip/rk3588-base.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/rockchip/rk3588-base.dtsi
>>> index 1e18ad93ba0ebdad31642b88ff0f90ef4e8dc76f..7b961ab838212fad8e4a70390fdc917a828433a9 100644
>>> --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/rockchip/rk3588-base.dtsi
>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/rockchip/rk3588-base.dtsi
>>> @@ -1136,6 +1136,91 @@ power-domain at RK3588_PD_SDMMC {
>>>               };
>>>       };
>>>
>>> +     rknn_core_top: npu-core at fdab0000 {
>>
>> npu@
>>
>>> +             compatible = "rockchip,rk3588-rknn-core-top", "rockchip,rknn-core-top";
>>
>> You never tested this. Test before sending instead of relying on us or
>> after merging.
> 
> Can you please extend on this? I have tested this series before
> sending and I don't understand what you mean here.

I mean exactly that: it was not tested, because warnings are clearly
visible/expected. I also found now Rob's report which even shows you the
warnings, so how come you still claim this was tested?

Best regards,
Krzysztof