[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20220926220610.GA2817947@p14s>
Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2022 16:06:10 -0600
From: Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@...aro.org>
To: "Peng Fan (OSS)" <peng.fan@....nxp.com>
Cc: bjorn.andersson@...aro.org, arnaud.pouliquen@...s.st.com,
linux-remoteproc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Peng Fan <peng.fan@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V7 2/2] remoteproc: support attach recovery after rproc
crash
On Tue, Jul 05, 2022 at 09:15:27AM +0800, Peng Fan (OSS) wrote:
> From: Peng Fan <peng.fan@....com>
>
> Current logic only support main processor to stop/start the remote
> processor after crash. However to SoC, such as i.MX8QM/QXP, the
> remote processor could do attach recovery after crash and trigger watchdog
> to reboot itself. It does not need main processor to load image, or
> stop/start remote processor.
>
> Introduce two functions: rproc_attach_recovery, rproc_boot_recovery
> for the two cases. Boot recovery is as before, let main processor to
> help recovery, while attach recovery is to recover itself without help.
> To attach recovery, we only do detach and attach.
>
> Acked-by: Arnaud Pouliquen <arnaud.pouliquen@...s.st.com>
> Signed-off-by: Peng Fan <peng.fan@....com>
> ---
> drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c | 62 +++++++++++++++++++---------
> 1 file changed, 43 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c
> index ed374c8bf14a..ef5b9310bc83 100644
> --- a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c
> +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c
> @@ -1884,6 +1884,45 @@ static int __rproc_detach(struct rproc *rproc)
> return 0;
> }
>
> +static int rproc_attach_recovery(struct rproc *rproc)
> +{
> + int ret;
> +
> + ret = __rproc_detach(rproc);
> + if (ret)
> + return ret;
I thought there was a specific reason to _not_ call rproc->ops->coredump() for
processors that have been attached to but looking at the STM32 and IMX_DSP now, it
would seem logical to do so. Am I missing something?
And this set will need a rebase.
Thanks,
Mathieu
> +
> + return __rproc_attach(rproc);
> +}
> +
> +static int rproc_boot_recovery(struct rproc *rproc)
> +{
> + const struct firmware *firmware_p;
> + struct device *dev = &rproc->dev;
> + int ret;
> +
> + ret = rproc_stop(rproc, true);
> + if (ret)
> + return ret;
> +
> + /* generate coredump */
> + rproc->ops->coredump(rproc);
> +
> + /* load firmware */
> + ret = request_firmware(&firmware_p, rproc->firmware, dev);
> + if (ret < 0) {
> + dev_err(dev, "request_firmware failed: %d\n", ret);
> + return ret;
> + }
> +
> + /* boot the remote processor up again */
> + ret = rproc_start(rproc, firmware_p);
> +
> + release_firmware(firmware_p);
> +
> + return ret;
> +}
> +
> /**
> * rproc_trigger_recovery() - recover a remoteproc
> * @rproc: the remote processor
> @@ -1898,7 +1937,6 @@ static int __rproc_detach(struct rproc *rproc)
> */
> int rproc_trigger_recovery(struct rproc *rproc)
> {
> - const struct firmware *firmware_p;
> struct device *dev = &rproc->dev;
> int ret;
>
> @@ -1912,24 +1950,10 @@ int rproc_trigger_recovery(struct rproc *rproc)
>
> dev_err(dev, "recovering %s\n", rproc->name);
>
> - ret = rproc_stop(rproc, true);
> - if (ret)
> - goto unlock_mutex;
> -
> - /* generate coredump */
> - rproc->ops->coredump(rproc);
> -
> - /* load firmware */
> - ret = request_firmware(&firmware_p, rproc->firmware, dev);
> - if (ret < 0) {
> - dev_err(dev, "request_firmware failed: %d\n", ret);
> - goto unlock_mutex;
> - }
> -
> - /* boot the remote processor up again */
> - ret = rproc_start(rproc, firmware_p);
> -
> - release_firmware(firmware_p);
> + if (rproc_has_feature(rproc, RPROC_FEAT_ATTACH_ON_RECOVERY))
> + ret = rproc_attach_recovery(rproc);
> + else
> + ret = rproc_boot_recovery(rproc);
>
> unlock_mutex:
> mutex_unlock(&rproc->lock);
> --
> 2.25.1
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists