[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <a4373b5d-fd01-9692-2660-792b5b84d08c@quicinc.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2022 17:23:24 +0530
From: Sibi Sankar <quic_sibis@...cinc.com>
To: Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>
CC: <dmitry.baryshkov@...aro.org>, <agross@...nel.org>,
<mathieu.poirier@...aro.org>, <linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-remoteproc@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] remoteproc: qcom: pas: Add decrypt shutdown support for
modem
Hey Bjorn,
Thanks for taking time to review the series.
On 7/1/22 12:58 AM, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
> On Fri 20 May 02:28 CDT 2022, Sibi Sankar wrote:
>
>> The initial shutdown request to modem on SM8450 SoCs would start the
>> decryption process and will keep returning errors until the modem shutdown
>> is complete. Fix this by retrying shutdowns in fixed intervals.
>>
>> Err Logs on modem shutdown:
>> qcom_q6v5_pas 4080000.remoteproc: failed to shutdown: -22
>> remoteproc remoteproc3: can't stop rproc: -22
>>
>> Fixes: 5cef9b48458d ("remoteproc: qcom: pas: Add SM8450 remoteproc support")
>> Signed-off-by: Sibi Sankar <quic_sibis@...cinc.com>
>
> Looks reasonable, just two inquiries below.
>
>> ---
>> drivers/remoteproc/qcom_q6v5_pas.c | 67 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
>> 1 file changed, 66 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/qcom_q6v5_pas.c b/drivers/remoteproc/qcom_q6v5_pas.c
>> index 6ae39c5653b1..d04c4b877e12 100644
>> --- a/drivers/remoteproc/qcom_q6v5_pas.c
>> +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/qcom_q6v5_pas.c
>> @@ -8,6 +8,7 @@
>> */
>>
>> #include <linux/clk.h>
>> +#include <linux/delay.h>
>> #include <linux/firmware.h>
>> #include <linux/interrupt.h>
>> #include <linux/kernel.h>
>> @@ -29,6 +30,8 @@
>> #include "qcom_q6v5.h"
>> #include "remoteproc_internal.h"
>>
>> +#define ADSP_DECRYPT_SHUTDOWN_DELAY_MS 100
>> +
>> struct adsp_data {
>> int crash_reason_smem;
>> const char *firmware_name;
>> @@ -36,6 +39,7 @@ struct adsp_data {
>> unsigned int minidump_id;
>> bool has_aggre2_clk;
>> bool auto_boot;
>> + bool decrypt_shutdown;
>>
>> char **proxy_pd_names;
>>
>> @@ -65,6 +69,7 @@ struct qcom_adsp {
>> unsigned int minidump_id;
>> int crash_reason_smem;
>> bool has_aggre2_clk;
>> + bool decrypt_shutdown;
>> const char *info_name;
>>
>> struct completion start_done;
>> @@ -128,6 +133,20 @@ static void adsp_pds_disable(struct qcom_adsp *adsp, struct device **pds,
>> }
>> }
>>
>> +static int adsp_decrypt_shutdown(struct qcom_adsp *adsp)
>> +{
>> + int retry_num = 50;
>
> Seems unsigned to me.
ack
>
>> + int ret = -EINVAL;
>> +
>> + while (retry_num && ret) {
>> + msleep(ADSP_DECRYPT_SHUTDOWN_DELAY_MS);
>> + ret = qcom_scm_pas_shutdown(adsp->pas_id);
>> + retry_num--;
>> + }
>
> Will qcom_scm_pas_shutdown() ever return any other errors than -EINVAL?
>
> Would it make sense to make this:
>
> do {
> ...;
> } while (ret == -EINVAL && --retry_num);
>
Just checking on ret would cover the -EINVAL case as well but like you
said pas_shutdown() won't return any other error. So I'll just stick
with your suggestion.
>> +
>> + return ret;
>> +}
>> +
>> static int adsp_unprepare(struct rproc *rproc)
>> {
>> struct qcom_adsp *adsp = (struct qcom_adsp *)rproc->priv;
>> @@ -249,6 +268,9 @@ static int adsp_stop(struct rproc *rproc)
>> dev_err(adsp->dev, "timed out on wait\n");
>>
>> ret = qcom_scm_pas_shutdown(adsp->pas_id);
>> + if (ret && adsp->decrypt_shutdown)
>> + ret = adsp_decrypt_shutdown(adsp);
>> +
>> if (ret)
>> dev_err(adsp->dev, "failed to shutdown: %d\n", ret);
>>
>> @@ -459,6 +481,7 @@ static int adsp_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>> adsp->pas_id = desc->pas_id;
>> adsp->has_aggre2_clk = desc->has_aggre2_clk;
>> adsp->info_name = desc->sysmon_name;
>> + adsp->decrypt_shutdown = desc->decrypt_shutdown;
>> platform_set_drvdata(pdev, adsp);
>>
>> device_wakeup_enable(adsp->dev);
>> @@ -533,6 +556,7 @@ static const struct adsp_data adsp_resource_init = {
>> .pas_id = 1,
>> .has_aggre2_clk = false,
>> .auto_boot = true,
>> + .decrypt_shutdown = false,
>
> With all these booleans, I would prefer if we cleaned it up to not list
> the disabled options. That would make it quicker to spot which features
> are actually enabled for each remoteproc.
ack and ack to the adsp_shutdown_poll_decrypt() as well.
>
> Regards,
> Bjorn
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists