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

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

Message-ID: <1226e147-9df7-e5d9-8d0b-7ef94cc1c446@quicinc.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2025 12:15:15 +0530
From: Souradeep Chowdhury <quic_schowdhu@...cinc.com>
To: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
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 3/13/2025 3:33 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> 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>
Thanks for the instructions, corrected in the next version.