Re: [PATCH 1/3] remoteproc: imx_rproc: skip clock enable when M-core is managed by the SCU

[Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@linaro.org>]

On Tue, May 06, 2025 at 09:36:19AM -0300, Hiago De Franco wrote:
> Hi Peng,
> 
> On Tue, May 06, 2025 at 12:38:35PM +0800, Peng Fan wrote:
> > On Mon, May 05, 2025 at 12:48:47PM -0300, Hiago De Franco wrote:
> > >From: Hiago De Franco <hiago.franco@toradex.com>
> > >
> > >For the i.MX8X and i.MX8 family SoCs, when the M-core is powered up
> > >before Linux starts (e.g., by the bootloader) and it is being managed by
> > >the SCU, the SCFW will not allow the kernel to enable the clock again.
> > >This currently causes an SCU fault reset when the M-core is up and
> > >running and the kernel boots, resetting the system.
> > >
> > >Therefore, add a check in the clock enable function to not execute it if
> > >the M-core is being managed by the SCU.
> > >
> > >This change affects only the i.MX8X and i.MX8 family SoCs, as this is
> > >under the IMX_RPROC_SCU_API method.
> > 
> > I would rewrite as below: "
> > 
> > For the i.MX8X and i.MX8 family SoCs, when the M-core is powered up
> > by the bootloader, M-core and Linux are in same SCFW(System Controller
> > Firmware) partition, so linux has permission to control M-core.
> > 
> > But when M-core is started, the SCFW will automatically enable the clock
> > and configure the rate, and any users that wanna to enable the clock
> > will get error 'LOCKED' from SCFW. So current imx_rproc.c probe function
> > gets failure because clk_prepare_enable returns failure. Then
> > the power domain of M-core is powered off when M-core is still running,
> > SCU(System Controller Unit) will get a fault reset, and system restarts.
> > 
> > To address the issue, ignore handling the clk for i.MX8X and i.MX8 M-core,
> > because SCFW automatically enables and configures the clock.
> > "
> > 
> > You may update if you wanna.
> > 
> > >
> > >Signed-off-by: Hiago De Franco <hiago.franco@toradex.com>
> > >Suggested-by: Peng Fan <peng.fan@oss.nxp.com>
> > 
> > -> peng.fan@nxp.com
> 
> Thanks for the review, I will update the suggestions on a v2. Meanwhile,
> I will wait a little bit for other feedbacks.
>

I suggest you go ahead with a v2 - I have a fair amount of patches to review and
my time to do so is currently very limited.

> > 
> > Thanks,
> > Peng
> > 
> > >---
> > > drivers/remoteproc/imx_rproc.c | 4 ++--
> > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > >
> > >diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/imx_rproc.c b/drivers/remoteproc/imx_rproc.c
> > >index 74299af1d7f1..627e57a88db2 100644
> > >--- a/drivers/remoteproc/imx_rproc.c
> > >+++ b/drivers/remoteproc/imx_rproc.c
> > >@@ -1029,8 +1029,8 @@ static int imx_rproc_clk_enable(struct imx_rproc *priv)
> > > 	struct device *dev = priv->dev;
> > > 	int ret;
> > > 
> > >-	/* Remote core is not under control of Linux */
> > >-	if (dcfg->method == IMX_RPROC_NONE)
> > >+	/* Remote core is not under control of Linux or it is managed by SCU API */
> > >+	if (dcfg->method == IMX_RPROC_NONE || dcfg->method == IMX_RPROC_SCU_API)
> > > 		return 0;
> > > 
> > > 	priv->clk = devm_clk_get(dev, NULL);
> > >-- 
> > >2.39.5
> > >
> 
> Cheers,
> Hiago.