Hi Peng, On 2/14/22 19:41, Arnaud POULIQUEN wrote: > Hi Peng, > > On 1/26/22 09:51, Peng Fan (OSS) wrote: >> From: Peng Fan <peng.fan@xxxxxxx> >> >> Current logic only support main processor to stop/start the remote >> processor after rproc crash. However to SoC, such as i.MX8QM/QXP, the >> remote processor could do self recovery after crash and trigger watchdog >> reboot. It does not need main processor to load image, stop/start M4 >> core. > > > On stm32mp1 platform the remote processor watchdog generates an early interrupt > that could be used to detach and reattach before the reset of the remote processor. > I need to test race condition,but I suppose that this should works if the resource > table is not reinitialized by the remote processor firmware. > > Another option for the stm32mp1 is that remoteproc manages the reset of the > remote processor. > For instance this allows to save a core-dump before manually resetting the remote > processor. > But looks like this use case can be handled later, as mentioned below. > >> >> This patch add a new flag to indicate whether the SoC has self recovery >> capability. And introduce two functions: rproc_self_recovery, >> rproc_assisted_recovery for the two cases. Assisted recovery is as >> before, let main processor to help recovery, while self recovery is >> recover itself withou help. To self recovery, we only do detach and >> attach. > > >> >> Signed-off-by: Peng Fan <peng.fan@xxxxxxx> >> --- >> >> V2: >> Nothing change in V2. >> Only move this patch out from >> https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-remoteproc/list/?series=604364 >> >> drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c | 66 ++++++++++++++++++++-------- >> include/linux/remoteproc.h | 2 + >> 2 files changed, 49 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c >> index 69f51acf235e..4bd5544dab8f 100644 >> --- a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c >> +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c >> @@ -1887,6 +1887,49 @@ static int __rproc_detach(struct rproc *rproc) >> return 0; >> } >> >> +static int rproc_self_recovery(struct rproc *rproc) >> +{ >> + int ret; >> + >> + mutex_unlock(&rproc->lock); >> + ret = rproc_detach(rproc); >> + mutex_lock(&rproc->lock); >> + if (ret) >> + return ret; > > Here we would want to perform a core dump and manually reset the > co-processor. > I suppose that a new rproc ops could be called here in a next step. > >> + >> + if (atomic_inc_return(&rproc->power) > 1) >> + return 0; > > Do you identify a use case that needs to test rproc->power to > skip the attach? > If yes could you add a comment to describe it? > >> + return rproc_attach(rproc); >> +} >> + >> +static int rproc_assisted_recovery(struct rproc *rproc) >> +{ >> + const struct firmware *firmware_p; >> + struct device *dev = &rproc->dev; >> + int ret; >> + >> + ret = rproc_stop(rproc, true); >> + if (ret) >> + return ret; >> + >> + /* generate coredump */ >> + rproc->ops->coredump(rproc); >> + >> + /* load firmware */ >> + ret = request_firmware(&firmware_p, rproc->firmware, dev); >> + if (ret < 0) { >> + dev_err(dev, "request_firmware failed: %d\n", ret); >> + return ret; >> + } >> + >> + /* boot the remote processor up again */ >> + ret = rproc_start(rproc, firmware_p); >> + >> + release_firmware(firmware_p); >> + >> + return ret; >> +} >> + >> /** >> * rproc_trigger_recovery() - recover a remoteproc >> * @rproc: the remote processor >> @@ -1901,7 +1944,6 @@ static int __rproc_detach(struct rproc *rproc) >> */ >> int rproc_trigger_recovery(struct rproc *rproc) >> { >> - const struct firmware *firmware_p; >> struct device *dev = &rproc->dev; >> int ret; >> >> @@ -1915,24 +1957,10 @@ int rproc_trigger_recovery(struct rproc *rproc) >> >> dev_err(dev, "recovering %s\n", rproc->name); >> >> - ret = rproc_stop(rproc, true); >> - if (ret) >> - goto unlock_mutex; >> - >> - /* generate coredump */ >> - rproc->ops->coredump(rproc); >> - >> - /* load firmware */ >> - ret = request_firmware(&firmware_p, rproc->firmware, dev); >> - if (ret < 0) { >> - dev_err(dev, "request_firmware failed: %d\n", ret); >> - goto unlock_mutex; >> - } >> - >> - /* boot the remote processor up again */ >> - ret = rproc_start(rproc, firmware_p); >> - >> - release_firmware(firmware_p); >> + if (rproc->self_recovery) >> + ret = rproc_self_recovery(rproc); > > If some platforms have to manually reset the remote processor (without > reloading the firmware) the name could not be relevant... > > Following comments are only suggestions that needs to be commented by maintainers > > What about rproc_attach_recovery ? > >> + else >> + ret = rproc_assisted_recovery(rproc); > > and rproc_firmware_recovery ? > > >> >> unlock_mutex: >> mutex_unlock(&rproc->lock); >> diff --git a/include/linux/remoteproc.h b/include/linux/remoteproc.h >> index e0600e1e5c17..b32ef46f8aa4 100644 >> --- a/include/linux/remoteproc.h >> +++ b/include/linux/remoteproc.h >> @@ -529,6 +529,7 @@ struct rproc_dump_segment { >> * @elf_machine: firmware ELF machine >> * @cdev: character device of the rproc >> * @cdev_put_on_release: flag to indicate if remoteproc should be shutdown on @char_dev release >> + * @self_recovery: flag to indicate if remoteproc support self recovery >> */ >> struct rproc { >> struct list_head node; >> @@ -568,6 +569,7 @@ struct rproc { >> u16 elf_machine; >> struct cdev cdev; >> bool cdev_put_on_release; >> + bool self_recovery; > > This bool seems needed because we have lost the previous state before crash. > I wonder if a new rproc->state such as RPROC_REBOOT could avoid this boolean. > > > I will try to test you patch on stm32mp1 next week I performed few tests on the stm32mp1 with your patch. Thanks to the resetting of the resource tables on detachment, this works quite well. Regards, Arnaud > > Regards, > Arnaud > >> }; >> >> /**
