[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <3064a3cb-9153-3bd1-4c55-79e8911f029f@ti.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2024 04:13:00 -0500
From: Hari Nagalla <hnagalla@...com>
To: Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@...aro.org>, Nishanth Menon <nm@...com>,
Vignesh Raghavendra <vigneshr@...com>, "Andrew F. Davis" <afd@...com>
CC: Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>,
Philipp Zabel
<p.zabel@...gutronix.de>, Suman Anna <s-anna@...com>,
Thomas Petazzoni
<thomas.petazzoni@...tlin.com>,
Alexandre Belloni
<alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com>,
Udit Kumar <u-kumar1@...com>,
Thomas Richard
<thomas.richard@...tlin.com>,
Gregory CLEMENT <gregory.clement@...tlin.com>,
Théo Lebrun <theo.lebrun@...tlin.com>,
<linux-remoteproc@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] remoteproc: k3-r5: Fix IPC-only mode detection
On 6/28/24 14:58, Mathieu Poirier wrote:
>> This could lead in an incorrect IPC-only mode detection if reset line is
>> asserted (so reset_control_status() return > 0) and c_state != 0 and
>> halted == 0.
>> In this case, the old code would have detected an IPC-only mode instead
>> of a mismatched mode.
>>
> Your assessment seems to be correct. That said I'd like to have an RB or a TB
> from someone in the TI delegation - guys please have a look.
Agree with Richard's assessment, and the proposed fix looks good.
Reviewed-by:
Hari Nagalla <hnagalla@...com>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists