[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <aH5bynQwaHbCJR3f@p14s>
Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2025 09:24:58 -0600
From: Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@...aro.org>
To: Tanmay Shah <tanmay.shah@....com>
Cc: andersson@...nel.org, linux-remoteproc@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] remoteproc: xlnx: disable unsupported features
Good morning,
On Wed, Jul 16, 2025 at 02:30:47PM -0700, Tanmay Shah wrote:
> AMD-Xilinx platform driver does not support iommu or recovery mechanism
> yet. Disable both features in platform driver.
>
> Signed-off-by: Tanmay Shah <tanmay.shah@....com>
> ---
> drivers/remoteproc/xlnx_r5_remoteproc.c | 2 ++
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/xlnx_r5_remoteproc.c b/drivers/remoteproc/xlnx_r5_remoteproc.c
> index a51523456c6e..0ffd26a47685 100644
> --- a/drivers/remoteproc/xlnx_r5_remoteproc.c
> +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/xlnx_r5_remoteproc.c
> @@ -938,6 +938,8 @@ static struct zynqmp_r5_core *zynqmp_r5_add_rproc_core(struct device *cdev)
>
> rproc_coredump_set_elf_info(r5_rproc, ELFCLASS32, EM_ARM);
>
> + r5_rproc->recovery_disabled = true;
If recovery is not supported, and it is set explicitly here, does it mean the
present upstream code is broken? And if it is broken, how was this tested in
the first place?
> + r5_rproc->has_iommu = false;
> r5_rproc->auto_boot = false;
> r5_core = r5_rproc->priv;
> r5_core->dev = cdev;
> --
> 2.34.1
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists