linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] Use Device Lifecycle managed functions in TI R5 Remoteproc driver

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <71a32b3b-290d-4d16-9cac-d65f36846178@ti.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2024 08:52:50 -0600
From: Andrew Davis <afd@...com>
To: Beleswar Padhi <b-padhi@...com>, <andersson@...nel.org>,
        <mathieu.poirier@...aro.org>
CC: <hnagalla@...com>, <u-kumar1@...com>, <jan.kiszka@...mens.com>,
        <christophe.jaillet@...adoo.fr>, <jkangas@...hat.com>,
        <eballetbo@...hat.com>, <linux-remoteproc@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] Use Device Lifecycle managed functions in TI R5
 Remoteproc driver

On 12/19/24 5:05 AM, Beleswar Padhi wrote:
> This series uses various devm_ helpers to simplify device removal path in
> ti_k3_r5_remoteproc driver. This is the first series in the TI K3
> Remoteproc refactoring as long planned since [0].
> 
> Testing Done:
> 1. Tested boot of R5F remoteprocs in MCU and MAIN voltage domain in both
> IPC-Only mode and Kernel remoteproc mode in all Jacinto K3 devices.
> 2. Tested Lockstep, Split and Single-CPU Mode configuration (wherever
> applicable) of R5F remoteprocs in all Jacinto K3 devices.
> 3. Tested shutdown of R5F remoteprocs from Linux userspace and also by
> executing `modprobe -r ti_k3_r5_remoteproc`.

Did you also test that you could then start the cores back up?

I think that might need some firmware fixes we are working on, so
might not work even before these patches, but just wanted to check
if we have tried it yet.

> 4. Tested that each patch in this series generates no new warnings/errors.

Was that with `make W=1 C=1`? Sparse checks will be done during -next
testing so good to check for those too.

Otherwise patches all look good to me, for the series:

Reviewed-by: Andrew Davis <afd@...com>

> 
> v2: Changelog:
> 1. Re-ordered patches in the series to use devm functions starting from
> the last called function in remove(), to ease review. [Andrew]
> 2. Fixed a missing return after dev_err_probe() call in [PATCH v2 3/5]
> ("remoteproc: k3-r5: Use devm_ioremap_wc() helper"). [Andrew]
> 3. Removed redundant rproc_del() call in [PATCH v2 4/5] ("remoteproc:
> k3-r5: Use devm_rproc_add() helper").
> 
> Link to v1:
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20241204111130.2218497-1-b-padhi@ti.com/
> 
> [0]: https://lore.kernel.org/all/Zr4w8Vj0mVo5sBsJ@p14s/
> 
> Beleswar Padhi (5):
>    remoteproc: k3-r5: Add devm action to release reserved memory
>    remoteproc: k3-r5: Use devm_kcalloc() helper
>    remoteproc: k3-r5: Use devm_ioremap_wc() helper
>    remoteproc: k3-r5: Use devm_rproc_add() helper
>    remoteproc: k3-r5: Add devm action to release tsp
> 
>   drivers/remoteproc/ti_k3_r5_remoteproc.c | 88 ++++++++++--------------
>   1 file changed, 35 insertions(+), 53 deletions(-)
>