Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 18 May 2024 12:44:50 +0200 | Subject | Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] remoteproc: k3-r5: Do not allow core1 to power up before core0 via sysfs | From | Christophe JAILLET <> |
| |
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 <b-padhi@ti.com> > --- > 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;
| |