From: Tanmay Shah <tanmay.shah@amd.com>
To: Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@linaro.org>
Cc: andersson@kernel.org, linux-remoteproc@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] remoteproc: xlnx: disable unsupported features
Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2025 11:37:23 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ada00b1e-b717-4051-9b33-3f43b5c08097@amd.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <aH5bynQwaHbCJR3f@p14s>
On 7/21/25 10:24 AM, Mathieu Poirier wrote:
> Good morning,
>
> On Wed, Jul 16, 2025 at 02:30:47PM -0700, Tanmay Shah wrote:
>> AMD-Xilinx platform driver does not support iommu or recovery mechanism
>> yet. Disable both features in platform driver.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Tanmay Shah <tanmay.shah@amd.com>
>> ---
>> drivers/remoteproc/xlnx_r5_remoteproc.c | 2 ++
>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/xlnx_r5_remoteproc.c b/drivers/remoteproc/xlnx_r5_remoteproc.c
>> index a51523456c6e..0ffd26a47685 100644
>> --- a/drivers/remoteproc/xlnx_r5_remoteproc.c
>> +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/xlnx_r5_remoteproc.c
>> @@ -938,6 +938,8 @@ static struct zynqmp_r5_core *zynqmp_r5_add_rproc_core(struct device *cdev)
>>
>> rproc_coredump_set_elf_info(r5_rproc, ELFCLASS32, EM_ARM);
>>
>> + r5_rproc->recovery_disabled = true;
>
> If recovery is not supported, and it is set explicitly here, does it mean the
> present upstream code is broken? And if it is broken, how was this tested in
> the first place?
I think upstream code can be improved to change "recovery_disabled" to
"recovery_enabled" and set it in each platform driver if feature is
supported and keep it disabled by default.
When upstreaming base driver I wasn't aware that there is recovery
feature in remoteproc until recently when I started working on it. I
guess too focused on fixing base driver features. That is how I missed
to add recovery_disabled and test it as well.
That is why it's better idea to replace "recovery_disabled" with
"recovery_enabled" and keep recovery feature disabled by default. Same
as "has_iommu". So platform drivers enable it if they actually support it.
I will add recovery feature for xlnx platform later, but until then it's
better to disable it in the platform driver.
Thanks,
Tanmay
>
>> + r5_rproc->has_iommu = false;
>> r5_rproc->auto_boot = false;
>> r5_core = r5_rproc->priv;
>> r5_core->dev = cdev;
>> --
>> 2.34.1
>>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-07-21 16:37 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-07-16 21:30 [PATCH 0/2] remoteproc xlnx driver enhancements Tanmay Shah
2025-07-16 21:30 ` [PATCH 1/2] remoteproc: xlnx: disable unsupported features Tanmay Shah
2025-07-21 6:57 ` Peng Fan
2025-07-21 15:26 ` Mathieu Poirier
2025-07-21 16:40 ` Tanmay Shah
2025-07-21 15:24 ` Mathieu Poirier
2025-07-21 16:37 ` Tanmay Shah [this message]
2025-07-22 15:16 ` Mathieu Poirier
2025-07-16 21:30 ` [PATCH 2/2] remoteproc: xlnx: fix kernel-doc warnings Tanmay Shah
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=ada00b1e-b717-4051-9b33-3f43b5c08097@amd.com \
--to=tanmay.shah@amd.com \
--cc=andersson@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-remoteproc@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mathieu.poirier@linaro.org \
/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
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®