linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1] remoteproc: Add device awake calls in rproc boot and shutdown path

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <2025031340-crux-nectar-b62c@gregkh>
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2025 11:03:46 +0100
From: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Souradeep Chowdhury <quic_schowdhu@...cinc.com>
Cc: Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@...aro.org>,
	Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>,
	linux-remoteproc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	stable <stable@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] remoteproc: Add device awake calls in rproc boot and
 shutdown path

On Thu, Mar 13, 2025 at 02:42:10PM +0530, Souradeep Chowdhury wrote:
> Gentle Reminder.
> 
> 
> On 3/3/2025 2:38 PM, Souradeep Chowdhury wrote:
> > Add device awake calls in case of rproc boot and rproc shutdown path.
> > Currently, device awake call is only present in the recovery path
> > of remoteproc. If a user stops and starts rproc by using the sysfs
> > interface, then on pm suspension the firmware loading fails. Keep the
> > device awake in such a case just like it is done for the recovery path.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Souradeep Chowdhury <quic_schowdhu@...cinc.com>
> > ---
> >   drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c | 6 +++++-
> >   1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c
> > index c2cf0d277729..908a7b8f6c7e 100644
> > --- a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c
> > +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c
> > @@ -1916,7 +1916,8 @@ int rproc_boot(struct rproc *rproc)
> >   		pr_err("invalid rproc handle\n");
> >   		return -EINVAL;
> >   	}
> > -
> > +	
> > +	pm_stay_awake(rproc->dev.parent);
> >   	dev = &rproc->dev;
> >   	ret = mutex_lock_interruptible(&rproc->lock);
> > @@ -1961,6 +1962,7 @@ int rproc_boot(struct rproc *rproc)
> >   		atomic_dec(&rproc->power);
> >   unlock_mutex:
> >   	mutex_unlock(&rproc->lock);
> > +	pm_relax(rproc->dev.parent);
> >   	return ret;
> >   }
> >   EXPORT_SYMBOL(rproc_boot);
> > @@ -1991,6 +1993,7 @@ int rproc_shutdown(struct rproc *rproc)
> >   	struct device *dev = &rproc->dev;
> >   	int ret = 0;
> > +	pm_stay_awake(rproc->dev.parent);
> >   	ret = mutex_lock_interruptible(&rproc->lock);
> >   	if (ret) {
> >   		dev_err(dev, "can't lock rproc %s: %d\n", rproc->name, ret);
> > @@ -2027,6 +2030,7 @@ int rproc_shutdown(struct rproc *rproc)
> >   	rproc->table_ptr = NULL;
> >   out:
> >   	mutex_unlock(&rproc->lock);
> > +	pm_relax(rproc->dev.parent);
> >   	return ret;
> >   }
> >   EXPORT_SYMBOL(rproc_shutdown);
> 
> 

<formletter>

This is not the correct way to submit patches for inclusion in the
stable kernel tree.  Please read:
    https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/stable-kernel-rules.html
for how to do this properly.

</formletter>