From: Peng Fan <peng.fan@oss.nxp.com>
To: Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@linaro.org>
Cc: mathieu.poirier@linaro.org, linux-imx@nxp.com,
linux-remoteproc@vger.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Peng Fan <peng.fan@nxp.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] remoteproc: core: check state in rproc_boot
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2022 08:48:54 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <7fdd22ee-e9be-3a68-d6ad-3fae7499ffbe@oss.nxp.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <YtOK+XU+dtqfnsox@builder.lan>
On 7/17/2022 12:07 PM, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
> On Thu 19 May 01:41 CDT 2022, Peng Fan (OSS) wrote:
>
>> From: Peng Fan <peng.fan@nxp.com>
>>
>> If remote processor has already been in RUNNING or ATTACHED
>> state, report it. Not just increment the power counter and return
>> success.
>>
>> Without this patch, if m7 is in RUNNING state, and start it again,
>> nothing output to console.
>> If wanna to stop the m7, we need write twice 'stop'.
>>
>> This patch is to improve that the 2nd start would show some useful
>> info.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Peng Fan <peng.fan@nxp.com>
>> ---
>>
>> Not sure to keep power counter or not.
>>
>
> I did discuss this with Mathieu, whom argued in favor of keeping the
> refcount mechanism.
>
> I can see that there could be a scenario where multiple user-space
> components keep the remotproc running while they are, and if there is
> any such user this ABI change would be a breakage.
>
> That said, it's more than once that I accidentally have bumped the
> refcount and then assumed that a single stop would tear down the
> remoteproc...
>
>> 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 02a04ab34a23..f37e0758c096 100644
>> --- a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c
>> +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c
>> @@ -2005,6 +2005,12 @@ int rproc_boot(struct rproc *rproc)
>> goto unlock_mutex;
>> }
>>
>> + if (rproc->state == RPROC_RUNNING || rproc->state == RPROC_ATTACHED) {
>
> If we were to do this would it make sense to boot it out of anything but
> RPROC_OFFLINE?
It is just a bit confused if started twice, need stop twice without any
notice.Not a critical thing, we could leave it as is.
Thanks,
Peng.
>
> Regards,
> Bjorn
>
>> + ret = -EINVAL;
>> + dev_err(dev, "%s already booted\n", rproc->name);
>> + goto unlock_mutex;
>> + }
>> +
>> /* skip the boot or attach process if rproc is already powered up */
>> if (atomic_inc_return(&rproc->power) > 1) {
>> ret = 0;
>> --
>> 2.25.1
>>
prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-07-20 0:49 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-05-19 6:41 [PATCH] remoteproc: core: check state in rproc_boot Peng Fan (OSS)
2022-07-17 4:07 ` Bjorn Andersson
2022-07-20 0:48 ` Peng Fan [this message]
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=7fdd22ee-e9be-3a68-d6ad-3fae7499ffbe@oss.nxp.com \
--to=peng.fan@oss.nxp.com \
--cc=bjorn.andersson@linaro.org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-imx@nxp.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-remoteproc@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mathieu.poirier@linaro.org \
--cc=peng.fan@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