Re: [RFC 2/2] remoteproc: core: keep rproc in crash state in case of recovery failure

Bjorn Andersson
2020-05-06T02:04:57Z

On Wed 11 Mar 03:54 PDT 2020, Loic Pallardy wrote:

> When an error occurs during recovery procedure, internal rproc
> variables may be unaligned:
> - state is set to RPROC_OFFLINE
> - power atomic not equal to 0
> which is normal as only rproc_stop() has been executed and not
> rproc_shutdown()
>
> In such case, rproc_boot() can be re-executed by client to
> reboot co-processor.
>
> This patch proposes to keep rproc in RPROC_CRASHED state in case
> of recovery failure to be coherent with recovery disabled mode.
>
> Signed-off-by: Loic Pallardy <loic.pallardy@st.com>
> ---
> drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c | 6 ++++++
> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c
> index 7ac87a75cd1b..def4f9fc881d 100644
> --- a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c
> +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c
> @@ -1679,6 +1679,12 @@ int rproc_trigger_recovery(struct rproc *rproc)
> release_firmware(firmware_p);
>
> unlock_mutex:
> + /*
> + * In case of error during recovery sequence restore rproc
> + * state in CRASHED
> + */
> + if (ret)
> + rproc->state = RPROC_CRASHED;

Got back to this after looking at Mathieu's synchronization series, I
think it would be cleaner if we move the rproc->state update out of
rproc_start() and rproc_stop().

That way we would leave the state in CRASHED state throughout the
recovery process, which I think makes it easier to reason about the
various states and their transitions.

Regards,
Bjorn

> mutex_unlock(&rproc->lock);
> return ret;
> }
> --
> 2.7.4
>