remoteproc: maintain a generic child device for each rproc

For each registered rproc, maintain a generic remoteproc device whose
parent is the low level platform-specific device (commonly a pdev, but
it may certainly be any other type of device too).

With this in hand, the resulting device hierarchy might then look like:

omap-rproc.0
 |
 - remoteproc0  <---- new !
    |
    - virtio0
    |
    - virtio1
       |
       - rpmsg0
       |
       - rpmsg1
       |
       - rpmsg2

Where:
- omap-rproc.0 is the low level device that's bound to the
  driver which invokes rproc_register()
- remoteproc0 is the result of this patch, and will be added by the
  remoteproc framework when rproc_register() is invoked
- virtio0 and virtio1 are vdevs that are registered by remoteproc
  when it realizes that they are supported by the firmware
  of the physical remote processor represented by omap-rproc.0
- rpmsg0, rpmsg1 and rpmsg2 are rpmsg devices that represent rpmsg
  channels, and are registerd by the rpmsg bus when it gets notified
  about their existence

Technically, this patch:
- changes 'struct rproc' to contain this generic remoteproc.x device
- creates a new "remoteproc" type, to which this new generic remoteproc.x
  device belong to.
- adds a super simple enumeration method for the indices of the
  remoteproc.x devices
- updates all dev_* messaging to use the generic remoteproc.x device
  instead of the low level platform-specific device
- updates all dma_* allocations to use the parent of remoteproc.x (where
  the platform-specific memory pools, most commonly CMA, are to be found)

Adding this generic device has several merits:
- we can now add remoteproc runtime PM support simply by hooking onto the
  new "remoteproc" type
- all remoteproc log messages will now carry a common name prefix
  instead of having a platform-specific one
- having a device as part of the rproc struct makes it possible to simplify
  refcounting (see subsequent patch)

Thanks to Stephen Boyd <sboyd@codeaurora.org> for suggesting and
discussing these ideas in one of the remoteproc review threads and
to Fernando Guzman Lugo <fernando.lugo@ti.com> for trying them out
with the (upcoming) runtime PM support for remoteproc.

Cc: Fernando Guzman Lugo <fernando.lugo@ti.com>
Reviewed-by: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@codeaurora.org>
Signed-off-by: Ohad Ben-Cohen <ohad@wizery.com>