From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-pl1-f172.google.com (mail-pl1-f172.google.com [209.85.214.172]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3640736D512 for ; Thu, 20 Nov 2025 17:58:25 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.214.172 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1763661506; cv=none; b=Q8icyQzoVgey/iYnxL9hIDqvz6xQmj4h/x4uDg7069sIwS87h+jXu2Wg7XrzTKKQlYSYMxnaOLYeY8XouL69iqr0hJHAwpaEGI5J+rDBojam02DGc5NwdLuXetqMkJQcEHFUzc3u/FUJpwIwMUc6g7qYkVV+q5BI0hCYBdWD2cc= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1763661506; c=relaxed/simple; bh=e/rWWjnF8wbNY62JkWWzbaPkZREI40lkpc1skO8jIvA=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=GWY6ERnvyHCkIQV0oL79fll3J90hOpTdsFLLj36muX+Vp7Ho7sWMoHk5CgIV+8HTArTo0AiOE8o+AI26q6hd+KnSq62THukJsiDkX61Uy6T+Yk27BvdN431+dgvBVDehWB/miKcDVZ1OpEqZP6LbZGx890HEv4F2MnWRTsAkHLw= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linaro.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linaro.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=linaro.org header.i=@linaro.org header.b=xBbS9yvH; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.214.172 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linaro.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linaro.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=linaro.org header.i=@linaro.org header.b="xBbS9yvH" Received: by mail-pl1-f172.google.com with SMTP id d9443c01a7336-29844c68068so12900045ad.2 for ; Thu, 20 Nov 2025 09:58:25 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linaro.org; s=google; t=1763661504; x=1764266304; darn=vger.kernel.org; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:from:date:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=81Hr5jtNndhTD+szOLsCA5qYSFkSUAdLD3dMu1GvSpQ=; b=xBbS9yvH5jNRg86UUqQbH6mF/wpAezUNiF/izsVpF60nlp53TB6rO+ykbjGU8ANGbG 2v0xR6pqWmQV9tY4MM3nu+Azi/ivUm7QN9qiZgJQPmNRMVHLClFjNGFB01fVT69YIaMQ 0lld7zqpNsmztP6DWmzrLflOzXv3ZgFKM9uEQadlnBOqegigVtaoXmI1dmEqbmz+Q5GW W/dBYLpQDeqvWtC0vfOnZXONPBhxESi+ja8tAV9DjELGolZXHPzF4xKiet/G+ILvHW9L qUDfRctqHHcYtuPZItCDVadUiIVKca2C5MDdhfvzDSywGaof7rKr5TVq9M7KDe9sDfrp t+oQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1763661504; x=1764266304; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:from:date:x-gm-gg:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=81Hr5jtNndhTD+szOLsCA5qYSFkSUAdLD3dMu1GvSpQ=; b=b1WTphICEy4z2pMnDyFkCfmz1GTdzlOJkZzPUNDv1C56iOIT1AwsDKvrNrTqVROzdk VoJxCVENPg8Wy34GlX7zZd9dBNvY8YDmQiwg/WsNi3C1eHBKs17gLvom6k0jmriGslLh D/WaOOeojq2ICdGTpEhZH3/v/R9E1cqJeKBKME9Doc8lYaLc7MAZrzpiO0wslhUE52ju CkP7UGPnaXkzhyouRWxJ0stP/X7aMG3l6o3dEg38FJjr7quNQ+55tMtCGPaD1PSTeDuE /Mho4X3ST24p6/AmtMM+fd2G71PDSxq+24UDpyu0jVluqMHY3pJX8roRG1mF6XhknOBu O30A== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCU7UA/s/H95iDlWYxQVAK6ung0lJAAhtnslibmc5Dl0VU1tKfBgAmbM/s7SZ3ELTfP7NBel8pOnmlhUSp0=@vger.kernel.org X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YzWFOJolNzkOpZby+sFsOt01Z4UxXzolLAAbDOY7NJzQON9lWAO IuD2zhCMTLjmlVX0SG+l+x/lwTpzq3hlB81vwfac9hq8IMuohbQK5OOlwsBb/zFLui0= X-Gm-Gg: ASbGncsybx6nYjXa38B3XbGBZFXs4FxORmrHB9fB4Wuv4dV4MaPOCdDAyi6nmw49lK1 9ukGmswHxEVKX3ClzicwdQE5WU6IQ4HvcERF+l2dQMZfRk25sc4Vh8E0ktO6/1WbDHB0Ipi7r+b gkL5OP+pnmZqRn7GoQaKJ0JnywORKOVmR5MmSwnd6uUWGOkBWRDjJMr3JIfBUY1kfZQ6loIQfmy eE+yQWpVpzDwVaxhLjUKGbjwMVmaupW3L4Fv5tjFtLfnJnuwcObiiPqZA5KnAI2ofhCMUZYP0d9 eop5MX3SLlsA+0SL2LhXduEpU9R4q5ySIudU6qAHpexkTOf4ATpT3LO01KaWIm3lMVnPrFSZDSZ 9AKLTmQuj0CiExjDfwZa69JorjJz4gEaW0yt+qLccNO2pMcyUVQzvvh/BIZ9lZf39/KEZOVV/VA guJ/iPOtdTUvRpws4FJjHUX2gd X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IEi8cM1CIzgcmszW9SQnYjK09JCR0Q6AhXxWUnW+K/OtzywbTM5ivUVzOlsKeFa+uMdzIHcdQ== X-Received: by 2002:a17:903:166e:b0:298:3aa6:c03d with SMTP id d9443c01a7336-29b691d63b8mr4431025ad.57.1763661504479; Thu, 20 Nov 2025 09:58:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from p14s ([2604:3d09:148c:c800:17b0:cde9:c3a1:870b]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id d9443c01a7336-29b5b29978fsm32158705ad.84.2025.11.20.09.58.23 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Thu, 20 Nov 2025 09:58:24 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2025 10:58:21 -0700 From: Mathieu Poirier To: Tanmay Shah Cc: andersson@kernel.org, linux-remoteproc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] remoteproc: core: full attach detach during recovery Message-ID: References: <20251113154403.2454319-1-tanmay.shah@amd.com> <20251113154403.2454319-3-tanmay.shah@amd.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20251113154403.2454319-3-tanmay.shah@amd.com> On Thu, Nov 13, 2025 at 07:44:03AM -0800, Tanmay Shah wrote: > Current attach on recovery mechanism loads the clean resource table > during recovery, but doesn't re-allocate the resources. RPMsg > communication will fail after recovery due to this. Fix this > incorrect behavior by doing the full detach and attach of remote > processor during the recovery. This will load the clean resource table > and re-allocate all the resources, which will set up correct vring > information in the resource table. > > Signed-off-by: Tanmay Shah > --- > > Changes in v2: > - use rproc_boot instead of rproc_attach > - move debug message early in the function > > drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c | 26 +++++++++++++++----------- > 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c > index aada2780b343..f65e8bc2d1e1 100644 > --- a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c > +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c > @@ -1777,11 +1777,11 @@ static int rproc_attach_recovery(struct rproc *rproc) > { > int ret; > > - ret = __rproc_detach(rproc); > + ret = rproc_detach(rproc); > if (ret) > return ret; > > - return __rproc_attach(rproc); > + return rproc_boot(rproc); > } > > static int rproc_boot_recovery(struct rproc *rproc) > @@ -1829,6 +1829,11 @@ int rproc_trigger_recovery(struct rproc *rproc) > struct device *dev = &rproc->dev; > int ret; > > + dev_err(dev, "recovering %s\n", rproc->name); > + > + if (rproc_has_feature(rproc, RPROC_FEAT_ATTACH_ON_RECOVERY)) > + return rproc_attach_recovery(rproc); > + Humm... I find this a little messy. Taking [1] as an example, I suggest moving the "unlock_mutex" block to line 1846 and add mutex calls to rproc_boot_recovery(). That way both rproc_attach_recovery() and rproc_boot_recovery() are called the same way. [1] https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.17.8/source/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c#L1832 > ret = mutex_lock_interruptible(&rproc->lock); > if (ret) > return ret; > @@ -1837,12 +1842,7 @@ int rproc_trigger_recovery(struct rproc *rproc) > if (rproc->state != RPROC_CRASHED) > goto unlock_mutex; > > - dev_err(dev, "recovering %s\n", rproc->name); > - > - if (rproc_has_feature(rproc, RPROC_FEAT_ATTACH_ON_RECOVERY)) > - ret = rproc_attach_recovery(rproc); > - else > - ret = rproc_boot_recovery(rproc); > + ret = rproc_boot_recovery(rproc); > > unlock_mutex: > mutex_unlock(&rproc->lock); > @@ -1860,6 +1860,7 @@ static void rproc_crash_handler_work(struct work_struct *work) > { > struct rproc *rproc = container_of(work, struct rproc, crash_handler); > struct device *dev = &rproc->dev; > + int ret; > > dev_dbg(dev, "enter %s\n", __func__); > > @@ -1883,8 +1884,11 @@ static void rproc_crash_handler_work(struct work_struct *work) > > mutex_unlock(&rproc->lock); > > - if (!rproc->recovery_disabled) > - rproc_trigger_recovery(rproc); > + if (!rproc->recovery_disabled) { > + ret = rproc_trigger_recovery(rproc); > + if (ret) > + dev_warn(dev, "rproc recovery failed, err %d\n", ret); I would prefer a patch on its own for this one. I'm running out of time for today, I'll review patch 3/3 tomorrow. Thanks, Mathieu > + } > > out: > pm_relax(rproc->dev.parent); > @@ -2057,7 +2061,7 @@ int rproc_detach(struct rproc *rproc) > return ret; > } > > - if (rproc->state != RPROC_ATTACHED) { > + if (rproc->state != RPROC_ATTACHED && rproc->state != RPROC_CRASHED) { > ret = -EINVAL; > goto out; > } > -- > 2.34.1 >