From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lelv0143.ext.ti.com (lelv0143.ext.ti.com [198.47.23.248]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9019A5C614; Mon, 1 Jul 2024 09:13:12 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=198.47.23.248 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1719825194; cv=none; b=IHbD3XkwWdqAcbYnpq1nrhzorfzEJF/d8FtJ/kMrHd2pu4IdtR9RszucvbxZxu6kCNv87gW2DH6YfZt37vEuOtT9i0i2yAHs3JT+T09KN2UeGTKpOGn2RCal0gahMoJmtxaqnBvydwbKo9kzRGNHHgBhFHiniKIQT3KsjdrrG8M= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1719825194; c=relaxed/simple; bh=lH6Op+NEqMEMhLVrlVLSaicKVq6DDK95y/ji3hzNK7w=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:CC:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=uT7ivgqrdHCQhxuZE61IfzkvRTqZy4gBO+Xvnot6VmIzkrMBsfdSoxBHNnD8a/x61wb/p59f2ZKuwvJUHU3WtCDFlKQqw6HtzCPjiMYvFB7FJcBcWsTN0WWWVkir9BnlDcq+aTzz7F4kTH0NwlNsJgA8BHTNeEG8INYtRrk7Eos= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=ti.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=ti.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=ti.com header.i=@ti.com header.b=LmHfupoh; arc=none smtp.client-ip=198.47.23.248 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=ti.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=ti.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=ti.com header.i=@ti.com header.b="LmHfupoh" Received: from fllv0034.itg.ti.com ([10.64.40.246]) by lelv0143.ext.ti.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 4619D1GD062498; Mon, 1 Jul 2024 04:13:01 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ti.com; s=ti-com-17Q1; t=1719825181; bh=gJqfpGs0H64qLnpC4fB9AmSwexSr+s5EWCWrwDYrIYw=; h=Date:Subject:To:CC:References:From:In-Reply-To; b=LmHfupoh1oy0fRMKIRgVGeISn6aev/W3pz1QSTfbjAdXO9Pe4n6pRZzheCOzTbfPS /tU4l0VV/G1zMrWywQmqz6t46tSWlLUavwDu82ubLLXT1L0boOpK1KgCzK/7NiZwhv nlgRtYhxZIsQv7XKu4hdhG5FwkBntahEkZBLLhTI= Received: from DFLE103.ent.ti.com (dfle103.ent.ti.com [10.64.6.24]) by fllv0034.itg.ti.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 4619D1ID090792 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Mon, 1 Jul 2024 04:13:01 -0500 Received: from DFLE115.ent.ti.com (10.64.6.36) by DFLE103.ent.ti.com (10.64.6.24) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.2507.23; Mon, 1 Jul 2024 04:13:00 -0500 Received: from lelvsmtp5.itg.ti.com (10.180.75.250) by DFLE115.ent.ti.com (10.64.6.36) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.2507.23 via Frontend Transport; Mon, 1 Jul 2024 04:13:00 -0500 Received: from [10.249.48.175] ([10.249.48.175]) by lelvsmtp5.itg.ti.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 4619D0qo023569; Mon, 1 Jul 2024 04:13:00 -0500 Message-ID: <3064a3cb-9153-3bd1-4c55-79e8911f029f@ti.com> Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2024 04:13:00 -0500 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.11.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] remoteproc: k3-r5: Fix IPC-only mode detection Content-Language: en-US To: Mathieu Poirier , Nishanth Menon , Vignesh Raghavendra , "Andrew F. Davis" CC: Bjorn Andersson , Philipp Zabel , Suman Anna , Thomas Petazzoni , Alexandre Belloni , Udit Kumar , Thomas Richard , Gregory CLEMENT , =?UTF-8?Q?Th=c3=a9o_Lebrun?= , , References: <20240621150058.319524-1-richard.genoud@bootlin.com> <20240621150058.319524-2-richard.genoud@bootlin.com> From: Hari Nagalla In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-EXCLAIMER-MD-CONFIG: e1e8a2fd-e40a-4ac6-ac9b-f7e9cc9ee180 On 6/28/24 14:58, Mathieu Poirier wrote: >> This could lead in an incorrect IPC-only mode detection if reset line is >> asserted (so reset_control_status() return > 0) and c_state != 0 and >> halted == 0. >> In this case, the old code would have detected an IPC-only mode instead >> of a mismatched mode. >> > Your assessment seems to be correct. That said I'd like to have an RB or a TB > from someone in the TI delegation - guys please have a look. Agree with Richard's assessment, and the proposed fix looks good. Reviewed-by: Hari Nagalla