lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2024]   [May]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH v3 2/2] remoteproc: k3-r5: Do not allow core1 to power up before core0 via sysfs
From
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;


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2024-05-18 12:45    [W:0.062 / U:0.204 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site