On Sat, 18 May 2024 at 04:44, Christophe JAILLET
<christophe.jaillet@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> 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@xxxxxx>
> > ---
> > 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?
>
This has already been addressed:
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/remoteproc/linux.git/commit/?h=rproc-next&id=1dc7242f6ee0c99852cb90676d7fe201cf5de422
> CJ
>
> > + }
> > +
> > ret = k3_r5_core_halt(core);
> > if (ret)
> > goto out;
>
