public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@linaro.org>
To: "Peng Fan (OSS)" <peng.fan@oss.nxp.com>
Cc: bjorn.andersson@linaro.org, arnaud.pouliquen@foss.st.com,
	linux-remoteproc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Peng Fan <peng.fan@nxp.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V7 2/2] remoteproc: support attach recovery after rproc crash
Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2022 16:06:10 -0600	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20220926220610.GA2817947@p14s> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20220705011527.2849057-3-peng.fan@oss.nxp.com>

On Tue, Jul 05, 2022 at 09:15:27AM +0800, Peng Fan (OSS) wrote:
> From: Peng Fan <peng.fan@nxp.com>
> 
> Current logic only support main processor to stop/start the remote
> processor after crash. However to SoC, such as i.MX8QM/QXP, the
> remote processor could do attach recovery after crash and trigger watchdog
> to reboot itself. It does not need main processor to load image, or
> stop/start remote processor.
> 
> Introduce two functions: rproc_attach_recovery, rproc_boot_recovery
> for the two cases. Boot recovery is as before, let main processor to
> help recovery, while attach recovery is to recover itself without help.
> To attach recovery, we only do detach and attach.
> 
> Acked-by: Arnaud Pouliquen <arnaud.pouliquen@foss.st.com>
> Signed-off-by: Peng Fan <peng.fan@nxp.com>
> ---
>  drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c | 62 +++++++++++++++++++---------
>  1 file changed, 43 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c
> index ed374c8bf14a..ef5b9310bc83 100644
> --- a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c
> +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c
> @@ -1884,6 +1884,45 @@ static int __rproc_detach(struct rproc *rproc)
>  	return 0;
>  }
>  
> +static int rproc_attach_recovery(struct rproc *rproc)
> +{
> +	int ret;
> +
> +	ret = __rproc_detach(rproc);
> +	if (ret)
> +		return ret;

I thought there was a specific reason to _not_ call rproc->ops->coredump() for
processors that have been attached to but looking at the STM32 and IMX_DSP now, it
would seem logical to do so.  Am I missing something?

And this set will need a rebase.

Thanks,
Mathieu

> +
> +	return __rproc_attach(rproc);
> +}
> +
> +static int rproc_boot_recovery(struct rproc *rproc)
> +{
> +	const struct firmware *firmware_p;
> +	struct device *dev = &rproc->dev;
> +	int ret;
> +
> +	ret = rproc_stop(rproc, true);
> +	if (ret)
> +		return ret;
> +
> +	/* generate coredump */
> +	rproc->ops->coredump(rproc);
> +
> +	/* load firmware */
> +	ret = request_firmware(&firmware_p, rproc->firmware, dev);
> +	if (ret < 0) {
> +		dev_err(dev, "request_firmware failed: %d\n", ret);
> +		return ret;
> +	}
> +
> +	/* boot the remote processor up again */
> +	ret = rproc_start(rproc, firmware_p);
> +
> +	release_firmware(firmware_p);
> +
> +	return ret;
> +}
> +
>  /**
>   * rproc_trigger_recovery() - recover a remoteproc
>   * @rproc: the remote processor
> @@ -1898,7 +1937,6 @@ static int __rproc_detach(struct rproc *rproc)
>   */
>  int rproc_trigger_recovery(struct rproc *rproc)
>  {
> -	const struct firmware *firmware_p;
>  	struct device *dev = &rproc->dev;
>  	int ret;
>  
> @@ -1912,24 +1950,10 @@ int rproc_trigger_recovery(struct rproc *rproc)
>  
>  	dev_err(dev, "recovering %s\n", rproc->name);
>  
> -	ret = rproc_stop(rproc, true);
> -	if (ret)
> -		goto unlock_mutex;
> -
> -	/* generate coredump */
> -	rproc->ops->coredump(rproc);
> -
> -	/* load firmware */
> -	ret = request_firmware(&firmware_p, rproc->firmware, dev);
> -	if (ret < 0) {
> -		dev_err(dev, "request_firmware failed: %d\n", ret);
> -		goto unlock_mutex;
> -	}
> -
> -	/* boot the remote processor up again */
> -	ret = rproc_start(rproc, firmware_p);
> -
> -	release_firmware(firmware_p);
> +	if (rproc_has_feature(rproc, RPROC_FEAT_ATTACH_ON_RECOVERY))
> +		ret = rproc_attach_recovery(rproc);
> +	else
> +		ret = rproc_boot_recovery(rproc);
>  
>  unlock_mutex:
>  	mutex_unlock(&rproc->lock);
> -- 
> 2.25.1
> 

  reply	other threads:[~2022-09-26 22:06 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2022-07-05  1:15 [PATCH V7 0/2] remoteproc: support self recovery Peng Fan (OSS)
2022-07-05  1:15 ` [PATCH V7 1/2] remoteproc: introduce rproc features Peng Fan (OSS)
2022-07-05  1:15 ` [PATCH V7 2/2] remoteproc: support attach recovery after rproc crash Peng Fan (OSS)
2022-09-26 22:06   ` Mathieu Poirier [this message]
2022-09-27  3:03     ` Peng Fan
2022-09-27  8:10       ` Arnaud POULIQUEN
2022-09-27 17:44         ` Mathieu Poirier
2022-09-28  6:49           ` Peng Fan
2022-09-20  3:25 ` [PATCH V7 0/2] remoteproc: support self recovery Peng Fan
2022-09-20  6:34   ` Peng Fan
2022-09-20 19:51     ` Mathieu Poirier
2022-09-21  2:37       ` Peng Fan

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20220926220610.GA2817947@p14s \
    --to=mathieu.poirier@linaro.org \
    --cc=arnaud.pouliquen@foss.st.com \
    --cc=bjorn.andersson@linaro.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-remoteproc@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=peng.fan@nxp.com \
    --cc=peng.fan@oss.nxp.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox