On Thu, Mar 28, 2024 at 10:17:13AM +0200, Leonard Crestez wrote: > On 3/18/24 18:52, Mathieu Poirier wrote: > > Hi Leonard, > > > > I have queued patches for this driver that will break this patch. Please > > re-submit when v6.9-rc1 is out and rproc-next has been updated, which should be > > around the middle of next week. > > Hello, > > It's been a while - v6.9-rc1 is out and rproc-next has been rebased on top of > it. But the coredump patch still applies? I expected some unrelated > xlnx_r5_remoteproc patches to cause conflicts but there's nothing there. > > It seems to me that the patch can be applied as-is and no resend is required. > Am I missing something? > You're not missing anything. Back when I wrote my initial comment Tanmay had submitted patches to fix the way TCMs are initialized, which conflicted with your patch. There were some last minute modifications to Tanmay's patchset and I ended up not applying it, leading us to where we are today. Tanmay - please review and test this patch. Thanks, Mathieu > -- > Regards, > Leonard > > > On Sat, Mar 16, 2024 at 08:16:42PM +0200, Leonard Crestez wrote: > >> Supporting remoteproc coredump requires the platform-specific driver to > >> register coredump segments to be dumped. Do this by calling > >> rproc_coredump_add_segment for every carveout. > >> > >> Also call rproc_coredump_set_elf_info when then rproc is created. If the > >> ELFCLASS parameter is not provided then coredump fails with an error. > >> Other drivers seem to pass EM_NONE for the machine argument but for me > >> this shows a warning in gdb. Pass EM_ARM because this is an ARM R5. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Leonard Crestez <cdleonard@xxxxxxxxx> > >> --- > >> > >> Tests were done by triggering an deliberate crash using remoteproc > >> debugfs: echo 2 > /sys/kernel/debug/remoteproc/remoteproc0/crash > >> > >> This was tested using RPU apps which use RAM for everything so TCM dump > >> was not verified. The freertos-gdb script package showed credible data: > >> > >> https://github.com/espressif/freertos-gdb > >> > >> The R5 cache is not flushed so RAM might be out of date which is > >> actually very bad because information most relevant to determining the > >> cause of a crash is lost. Possible workaround would be to flush caches > >> in some sort of R5 crash handler? I don't think Linux can do anything > >> about this limitation. > >> > >> The generated coredump doesn't contain registers, this seems to be a > >> limitation shared with other rproc coredumps. It's not clear how the apu > >> could access rpu registers on zynqmp, my only idea would be to use the > >> coresight dap but that sounds difficult.
