On 5/22/2012 4:51 AM, Ohad Ben-Cohen wrote: > When an rproc instance is registered, remoteproc asynchronously > loads its firmware in order to tell which vdevs it supports. > > Later on those vdevs are registered, and when probed, their drivers > usually trigger powering on of the remote processor. > > OTOH, non-standard scenarios might involve early invocation of > rproc_boot even before the asynchronous fw loading has completed. > > We're not sure we really want to support those scenarios, but right > now we do (e.g. via rproc_get_by_name), so let's simply fix this race > by blocking those premature rproc_boot() flows until the async fw > loading is completed. > > Reported-and-tested-by: Sjur Brandeland <sjur.brandeland@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Signed-off-by: Ohad Ben-Cohen <ohad@xxxxxxxxxx> > --- > drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c | 12 ++++++++++++ > 1 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c > index 40e2b2d..464ea4f 100644 > --- a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c > +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c > @@ -1141,6 +1141,18 @@ int rproc_boot(struct rproc *rproc) > > dev = rproc->dev; > > + /* > + * if asynchronoush fw loading is underway, wait up to 65 secs > + * (just a bit more than the firmware request's timeout) > + */ > + ret = wait_for_completion_interruptible_timeout( > + &rproc->firmware_loading_complete, > + msecs_to_jiffies(65000)); The request_firmware timeout is defaulted to 60 seconds but not necessarily 60 if the user has changed the timeout in sysfs. Why does this need to be a timeout at all? Presumably request_firmware_nowait() in rproc_register() will timeout and complete the firmware_loading_complete completion variable. Would it suffice to have some new rproc->state like RPROC_UNKNOWN that we set in rproc_register() before adding it to the list of rprocs? If we find the firmware then we set it to RPROC_READY or RPROC_REGISTERED? Then we wait_for_completion() and check the state, failing if it's still in the unknown state. -- Sent by an employee of the Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
