From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.smtpout.orange.fr (smtp-14.smtpout.orange.fr [80.12.242.14]) (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 C2A961BC3C; Sat, 18 May 2024 10:44:56 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=80.12.242.14 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1716029103; cv=none; b=j4czcIQkxSPOSAwZ+tLIZh/oRofuLuYf4AdWbfSJWKNk9Wlj+I1NZ3sN3NJqpnca3lyEN9jAXI/70U4Bu8X1fOY6pWdUx15KYIcp9M8PyBfaCLgcq43js6g0ZzMXHZNKWwn+bMRNhZVWv2h4dw1oxE6DEeVhBkEdKrkkyRLFaDg= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1716029103; c=relaxed/simple; bh=w9uO90PEVchWF/KDLtiQBRWtcj+my9bPQ3PyABa0620=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:Cc:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=QMMoYTK8a6QHmdeJUhWC/4tsvUYVMQNmik/LBafD64VY806dU9gohFKGEQvtky7xdyIZd/TB6nf/wB3FKsdJu9/BppmioVmFM9lanGvxEfNR8ICQP1naW94/zbPoVbN4QcXIcBNO3pgnT2r81uWactgdNxfxKTGHy74lEjdAh9s= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=wanadoo.fr; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=wanadoo.fr; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=wanadoo.fr header.i=@wanadoo.fr header.b=MubZWbbp; arc=none smtp.client-ip=80.12.242.14 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=wanadoo.fr Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=wanadoo.fr Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=wanadoo.fr header.i=@wanadoo.fr header.b="MubZWbbp" Received: from [192.168.1.37] ([86.243.17.157]) by smtp.orange.fr with ESMTPA id 8HYOsF27V8l328HYOsn98a; Sat, 18 May 2024 12:44:42 +0200 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=wanadoo.fr; s=t20230301; t=1716029082; bh=CnHWkfDAsDJHSUGxw5qt7rqfqyEiFLAjpWktp56bQ+c=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:From; b=MubZWbbpbZ3c+j/jDwgju82KMsgt+psBSNdHLGfXsH58n04rw1MlW4ZNCTFcY2QGL yCBkWFWanH+ekkYkHzQKG2+nu4uERUD28J3d/hCtIAUe6rLoSTQSnfnZQ3AIkYz64L GtJ+CIPBU9Kx1PQ74L2ZlJv0LLnZdflmoG1JSMaTbL/J+AZHZvmJKCJe2RZH4HyTZK adnu+08kdbp3MQdqfw/xFgy6k1ppyo/D9RIVyw7tyOiSMe8YGVR80DvTLCg+ZYZmMX 7e8e/lpKecQs8hT9O3Q/LHh9T/+YNiVkgg9ZEPQjiMJ+/jYoj7qljJqKdbe7vdKpIP QXbjpEYyitC+g== X-ME-Helo: [192.168.1.37] X-ME-Auth: Y2hyaXN0b3BoZS5qYWlsbGV0QHdhbmFkb28uZnI= X-ME-Date: Sat, 18 May 2024 12:44:42 +0200 X-ME-IP: 86.243.17.157 Message-ID: <954f974f-8b97-4ff6-bb57-35501fa9ceb9@wanadoo.fr> Date: Sat, 18 May 2024 12:44:50 +0200 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] remoteproc: k3-r5: Do not allow core1 to power up before core0 via sysfs To: Beleswar Padhi , andersson@kernel.org Cc: mathieu.poirier@linaro.org, s-anna@ti.com, linux-remoteproc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, u-kumar1@ti.com, nm@ti.com, devarsht@ti.com, hnagalla@ti.com References: <20240430105307.1190615-1-b-padhi@ti.com> <20240430105307.1190615-3-b-padhi@ti.com> Content-Language: en-MW From: Christophe JAILLET In-Reply-To: <20240430105307.1190615-3-b-padhi@ti.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Le 30/04/2024 à 12:53, Beleswar Padhi a écrit : > PSC controller has a limitation that it can only power-up the second > core when the first core is in ON state. Power-state for core0 should be > equal to or higher than core1. > > Therefore, prevent core1 from powering up before core0 during the start > process from sysfs. Similarly, prevent core0 from shutting down before > core1 has been shut down from sysfs. > > Fixes: 6dedbd1d5443 ("remoteproc: k3-r5: Add a remoteproc driver for R5F subsystem") > > Signed-off-by: Beleswar Padhi > --- > drivers/remoteproc/ti_k3_r5_remoteproc.c | 23 +++++++++++++++++++++-- > 1 file changed, 21 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/ti_k3_r5_remoteproc.c b/drivers/remoteproc/ti_k3_r5_remoteproc.c > index 6d6afd6beb3a..1799b4f6d11e 100644 > --- a/drivers/remoteproc/ti_k3_r5_remoteproc.c > +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/ti_k3_r5_remoteproc.c > @@ -548,7 +548,7 @@ static int k3_r5_rproc_start(struct rproc *rproc) > struct k3_r5_rproc *kproc = rproc->priv; > struct k3_r5_cluster *cluster = kproc->cluster; > struct device *dev = kproc->dev; > - struct k3_r5_core *core; > + struct k3_r5_core *core0, *core; > u32 boot_addr; > int ret; > > @@ -574,6 +574,15 @@ static int k3_r5_rproc_start(struct rproc *rproc) > goto unroll_core_run; > } > } else { > + /* do not allow core 1 to start before core 0 */ > + core0 = list_first_entry(&cluster->cores, struct k3_r5_core, > + elem); > + if (core != core0 && core0->rproc->state == RPROC_OFFLINE) { > + dev_err(dev, "%s: can not start core 1 before core 0\n", > + __func__); > + return -EPERM; > + } > + > ret = k3_r5_core_run(core); > if (ret) > goto put_mbox; > @@ -619,7 +628,8 @@ static int k3_r5_rproc_stop(struct rproc *rproc) > { > struct k3_r5_rproc *kproc = rproc->priv; > struct k3_r5_cluster *cluster = kproc->cluster; > - struct k3_r5_core *core = kproc->core; > + struct device *dev = kproc->dev; > + struct k3_r5_core *core1, *core = kproc->core; > int ret; > > /* halt all applicable cores */ > @@ -632,6 +642,15 @@ static int k3_r5_rproc_stop(struct rproc *rproc) > } > } > } else { > + /* do not allow core 0 to stop before core 1 */ > + core1 = list_last_entry(&cluster->cores, struct k3_r5_core, > + elem); > + if (core != core1 && core1->rproc->state != RPROC_OFFLINE) { > + dev_err(dev, "%s: can not stop core 0 before core 1\n", > + __func__); > + return -EPERM; Hi, this patch has already reached -next, but should this "return -EPERM;" be : ret = -EPERM; goto put_mbox; instead? CJ > + } > + > ret = k3_r5_core_halt(core); > if (ret) > goto out;