From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lelv0142.ext.ti.com (lelv0142.ext.ti.com [198.47.23.249]) (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 F01C5288B1; Tue, 17 Sep 2024 05:20:20 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=198.47.23.249 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1726550423; cv=none; b=XENtrtCez502kpBwx2GOZJcMBpmRDCwL/dtQmX0FwG6TK+VOJL80rax+AOPMEtgPvzhSc7TrPT8TTo077xj/lO4/hBSUaOay6y08ZopJuFGjImGvQoyJKvgviyUxSNm9lyvK0DIz3Zon5OB0E77oSiTzoxOWxSaEfe5iHjOIXP0= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1726550423; c=relaxed/simple; bh=yYcmQlQZ78r/n5JJeYFb7IMdI48aUYUtAr1H/PKhXwg=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:CC:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=BLhjGEGr5uSL/JLe2qEKcuRk0a/ZD6u5hmrAb5R66byejrp1BzJkLIkccjSx9ZFiifNBR4RnFX5hfNXNNN1H8kI629Vd6iVb4HKPDL3Mm4/LP76RctzdtQCFH479fqEjYkD+xP9SD9vRftlNHYMjfRBo0XNl19YyQtgX+9Qm3cs= 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=kJfgKfvW; arc=none smtp.client-ip=198.47.23.249 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="kJfgKfvW" Received: from fllv0034.itg.ti.com ([10.64.40.246]) by lelv0142.ext.ti.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 48H5K6Jw051855; Tue, 17 Sep 2024 00:20:06 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ti.com; s=ti-com-17Q1; t=1726550406; bh=Nnp33+KXLcWzN5rrn20cPD+EDnVgjdIxGIfjhChI7Ys=; h=Date:Subject:To:CC:References:From:In-Reply-To; b=kJfgKfvWjrtEOtqn+NLEUEH1UF3aZ9VVSKxeUUXZ2ClH+zEdfXJgL9M+SQ83lVaBV K66HQbI1jvWqWrEfFt5psRFUhK87CKguABOA6KDMpin+MxVoV5zHh1QemxgKjRZxEw OGHnAPcu27Fzqtcu/VzMLXPiBS1Hp7xtD6jxv0T0= Received: from DFLE109.ent.ti.com (dfle109.ent.ti.com [10.64.6.30]) by fllv0034.itg.ti.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 48H5K6pR033430 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Tue, 17 Sep 2024 00:20:06 -0500 Received: from DFLE110.ent.ti.com (10.64.6.31) by DFLE109.ent.ti.com (10.64.6.30) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.2507.23; Tue, 17 Sep 2024 00:20:05 -0500 Received: from lelvsmtp6.itg.ti.com (10.180.75.249) by DFLE110.ent.ti.com (10.64.6.31) 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; Tue, 17 Sep 2024 00:20:05 -0500 Received: from [172.24.19.92] (lt5cd2489kgj.dhcp.ti.com [172.24.19.92]) by lelvsmtp6.itg.ti.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 48H5K2uq038382; Tue, 17 Sep 2024 00:20:02 -0500 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2024 10:50:01 +0530 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: [RFC PATCH] remoteproc: k3-r5: Fix check performed in k3_r5_rproc_{mbox_callback/kick} To: Mathieu Poirier , Siddharth Vadapalli , Hari Nagalla , Andrew Davis CC: , , , , , References: <20240916083131.2801755-1-s-vadapalli@ti.com> Content-Language: en-US From: "Kumar, Udit" 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 9/16/2024 8:50 PM, Mathieu Poirier wrote: > On Mon, 16 Sept 2024 at 02:31, Siddharth Vadapalli wrote: >> Commit f3f11cfe8907 ("remoteproc: k3-r5: Acquire mailbox handle during >> probe routine") introduced a check in the "k3_r5_rproc_mbox_callback()" and >> "k3_r5_rproc_kick()" callbacks, causing them to exit if the remote core's >> state is "RPROC_DETACHED". However, the "__rproc_attach()" function that is >> responsible for attaching to a remote core, updates the state of the remote >> core to "RPROC_ATTACHED" only after invoking "rproc_start_subdevices()". >> >> The "rproc_start_subdevices()" function triggers the probe of the Virtio >> RPMsg devices associated with the remote core, which require that the >> "k3_r5_rproc_kick()" and "k3_r5_rproc_mbox_callback()" callbacks are >> functional. Hence, drop the check in the callbacks. > Honestly, I am very tempted to just revert f3f11cfe8907 and ea1d6fb5b571. Please don't :) , it will break rproc in general for k3 devices. Couple of solutions for this race around condition (in mine preference order) 1) In https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.11/source/drivers/remoteproc/ti_k3_r5_remoteproc.c#L190 have a check , if probe in is progress or not 2) https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.11/source/drivers/remoteproc/ti_k3_r5_remoteproc.c#L1205 -- correct the state to ON or something else 3) Move condition https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.11/source/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c#L1360 before rproc_start_subdevices calling > >> Fixes: f3f11cfe8907 ("remoteproc: k3-r5: Acquire mailbox handle during probe routine") >> Signed-off-by: Siddharth Vadapalli >> --- >> >> Hello, >> >> Since the commit being fixed is not yet a part of Mainline Linux, this >> patch is based on linux-next tagged next-20240913. >> >> An alternative to this patch will be a change to the "__rproc_attach()" >> function in the "remoteproc_core.c" driver with >> rproc->state = RPROC_ATTACHED; >> being set after "rproc_attach_device()" is invoked, but __before__ >> invoking "rproc_start_subdevices()". Since this change will be performed >> in the common Remoteproc Core, it appeared to me that fixing it in the >> TI remoteproc driver is the correct approach. >> >> The equivalent of this patch for ti_k3_dsp_remoteproc.c might also be >> required, which I shall post if the current patch is acceptable. >> >> Kindly review and share your feedback on this patch. >> >> Regards, >> Siddharth. >> >> drivers/remoteproc/ti_k3_r5_remoteproc.c | 8 -------- >> 1 file changed, 8 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/ti_k3_r5_remoteproc.c b/drivers/remoteproc/ti_k3_r5_remoteproc.c >> index 747ee467da88..4894461aa65f 100644 >> --- a/drivers/remoteproc/ti_k3_r5_remoteproc.c >> +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/ti_k3_r5_remoteproc.c >> @@ -194,10 +194,6 @@ static void k3_r5_rproc_mbox_callback(struct mbox_client *client, void *data) >> const char *name = kproc->rproc->name; >> u32 msg = omap_mbox_message(data); >> >> - /* Do not forward message from a detached core */ >> - if (kproc->rproc->state == RPROC_DETACHED) >> - return; >> - >> dev_dbg(dev, "mbox msg: 0x%x\n", msg); >> >> switch (msg) { >> @@ -233,10 +229,6 @@ static void k3_r5_rproc_kick(struct rproc *rproc, int vqid) >> mbox_msg_t msg = (mbox_msg_t)vqid; >> int ret; >> >> - /* Do not forward message to a detached core */ >> - if (kproc->rproc->state == RPROC_DETACHED) >> - return; >> - >> /* send the index of the triggered virtqueue in the mailbox payload */ >> ret = mbox_send_message(kproc->mbox, (void *)msg); >> if (ret < 0) >> -- >> 2.40.1 >>