> Subject: Re: [PATCH V7 6/7] remoteproc: imx_rproc: request mbox channel
> later
>
> On Mon, Oct 17, 2022 at 03:13:16AM +0000, Peng Fan wrote:
> > Hi Mathieu,
> >
> > > Subject: Re: [PATCH V7 6/7] remoteproc: imx_rproc: request mbox
> > > channel later
> > >
> > > On Fri, Oct 14, 2022 at 11:10:36AM +0800, Peng Fan (OSS) wrote:
> > > > From: Peng Fan <peng.fan@xxxxxxx>
> > > >
> > > > It is possible that when remote processor crash, the communication
> > > > channel will be broken with garbage value in mailbox, such as when
> > > > Linux is issuing a message through mailbox, remote processor
> > > > crashes, we need free & rebuild the mailbox channels to make sure
> > > > no garbage value in mailbox channels.
> > > >
> > > > So move the request/free to start/stop for managing remote
> > > > procesosr in Linux, move to attach/detach for remote processor is
> > > > out of control of Linux.
> > > >
> > > > Previous, we just request mbox when attach for CM4 boot early
> > > > before Linux, but if mbox defer probe, remoteproc core will do
> > > > resource cleanup and corrupt resource table for later probe.
> > > >
> > > > So move request mbox ealier and still keep mbox request when
> > > > attach for self recovery case, but keep a check when request/free
> mbox.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Peng Fan <peng.fan@xxxxxxx>
> > > > ---
> > > > drivers/remoteproc/imx_rproc.c | 39
> > > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
> > > > 1 file changed, 37 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/imx_rproc.c
> > > > b/drivers/remoteproc/imx_rproc.c index
> 917e6db39572..1183de84a4c0
> > > > 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/remoteproc/imx_rproc.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/imx_rproc.c
> > > > @@ -84,6 +84,8 @@ struct imx_rproc_mem {
> > > > #define ATT_CORE_MASK 0xffff
> > > > #define ATT_CORE(I) BIT((I))
> > > >
> > > > +static int imx_rproc_xtr_mbox_init(struct rproc *rproc); static
> > > > +void imx_rproc_free_mbox(struct rproc *rproc);
> > > > static int imx_rproc_detach_pd(struct rproc *rproc);
> > > >
> > > > struct imx_rproc {
> > > > @@ -357,6 +359,10 @@ static int imx_rproc_start(struct rproc *rproc)
> > > > struct arm_smccc_res res;
> > > > int ret;
> > > >
> > > > + ret = imx_rproc_xtr_mbox_init(rproc);
> > > > + if (ret)
> > > > + return ret;
> > > > +
> > > > switch (dcfg->method) {
> > > > case IMX_RPROC_MMIO:
> > > > ret = regmap_update_bits(priv->regmap, dcfg->src_reg,
> > > > dcfg->src_mask, @@ -407,6 +413,8 @@ static int
> > > > dcfg->imx_rproc_stop(struct
> > > > rproc *rproc)
> > > >
> > > > if (ret)
> > > > dev_err(dev, "Failed to stop remote core\n");
> > > > + else
> > > > + imx_rproc_free_mbox(rproc);
> > > >
> > > > return ret;
> > > > }
> > > > @@ -592,6 +600,22 @@ static void imx_rproc_kick(struct rproc
> > > > *rproc, int vqid)
> > > >
> > > > static int imx_rproc_attach(struct rproc *rproc) {
> > > > + return imx_rproc_xtr_mbox_init(rproc); }
> > > > +
> > > > +static int imx_rproc_detach(struct rproc *rproc) {
> > > > + struct imx_rproc *priv = rproc->priv;
> > > > + const struct imx_rproc_dcfg *dcfg = priv->dcfg;
> > > > +
> > > > + if (dcfg->method != IMX_RPROC_SCU_API)
> > > > + return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> > > > +
> > > > + if (imx_sc_rm_is_resource_owned(priv->ipc_handle, priv->rsrc_id))
> > > > + return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> > > > +
> > > > + imx_rproc_free_mbox(rproc);
> > > > +
> > > > return 0;
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > @@ -610,6 +634,7 @@ static struct resource_table
> > > > *imx_rproc_get_loaded_rsc_table(struct rproc *rproc static const
> > > > struct
> > > rproc_ops imx_rproc_ops = {
> > > > .prepare = imx_rproc_prepare,
> > > > .attach = imx_rproc_attach,
> > > > + .detach = imx_rproc_detach,
> > > > .start = imx_rproc_start,
> > > > .stop = imx_rproc_stop,
> > > > .kick = imx_rproc_kick,
> > > > @@ -720,6 +745,9 @@ static int imx_rproc_xtr_mbox_init(struct
> > > > rproc
> > > *rproc)
> > > > struct device *dev = priv->dev;
> > > > struct mbox_client *cl;
> > > >
> > > > + if (priv->tx_ch && priv->rx_ch)
> > > > + return 0;
> > > > +
> > >
> > > You did exactly the same things as in V6. I asked you why this is
> > > needed and all you did is point me to the code in _probe(), which I can
> read on my own.
> > >
> >
> > Sorry for not wrote down clear.
> >
> > > Again - why is this needed when we know it will be done in start()
> > > and attach()?
> >
> > start() and attach() not able to handle mbox defer probe. So I add
>
> We are finally at the heart of the problem. I had to go look at the
> implementation of imx_rproc_xtr_mbox_init() to understand that it can
> return -EPROBE_DEFER. Had there been a comment in the code to highlight
> _why_ the if() condition is needed, I would have understood right away and
> all this waste of time avoided.
My bad. I could add comment in V8 if no major comments after you review.
Thanks for your time.
Thanks,
Peng.
>
> > the mbox requesting in probe to handle mbox defer probe, and add a
> > check when requesting mbox channel in start/attach. During first time
> > attach/start remote core, the imx_rproc_xtr_mbox_init just return,
> > because channel requested in probe flow.
> >
> > Since mbox requested in probe, why still add it in start() and attach()?
> > It is to support runtime stop and start(M4 is under control of Linux),
> > to support runtime detach(only for i.MX8QM/QXP attach recovery,
> > m4 out of control from linux) and attach.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Peng.
> > >
> > >
> > > > if (!of_get_property(dev->of_node, "mbox-names", NULL))
> > > > return 0;
> > > >
> > > > @@ -749,8 +777,15 @@ static void imx_rproc_free_mbox(struct rproc
> > > > *rproc) {
> > > > struct imx_rproc *priv = rproc->priv;
> > > >
> > > > - mbox_free_channel(priv->tx_ch);
> > > > - mbox_free_channel(priv->rx_ch);
> > > > + if (priv->tx_ch) {
> > > > + mbox_free_channel(priv->tx_ch);
> > > > + priv->tx_ch = NULL;
> > > > + }
> > > > +
> > > > + if (priv->rx_ch) {
> > > > + mbox_free_channel(priv->rx_ch);
> > > > + priv->rx_ch = NULL;
> > > > + }
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > static void imx_rproc_put_scu(struct rproc *rproc)
> > > > --
> > > > 2.37.1
> > > >
