6.10-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
------------------
From: Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@xxxxxxxxxxx>
commit 9ab27eb5866ccbf57715cfdba4b03d57776092fb upstream.
By simply bailing out, the driver was violating its rule and internal
assumptions that either both or no rproc should be initialized. E.g.,
this could cause the first core to be available but not the second one,
leading to crashes on its shutdown later on while trying to dereference
that second instance.
Fixes: 61f6f68447ab ("remoteproc: k3-r5: Wait for core0 power-up before powering up core1")
Signed-off-by: Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Acked-by: Beleswar Padhi <b-padhi@xxxxxx>
Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/9f481156-f220-4adf-b3d9-670871351e26@xxxxxxxxxxx
Signed-off-by: Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@xxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/remoteproc/ti_k3_r5_remoteproc.c | 3 ++-
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
--- a/drivers/remoteproc/ti_k3_r5_remoteproc.c
+++ b/drivers/remoteproc/ti_k3_r5_remoteproc.c
@@ -1332,7 +1332,7 @@ init_rmem:
dev_err(dev,
"Timed out waiting for %s core to power up!\n",
rproc->name);
- return ret;
+ goto err_powerup;
}
}
@@ -1348,6 +1348,7 @@ err_split:
}
}
+err_powerup:
rproc_del(rproc);
err_add:
k3_r5_reserved_mem_exit(kproc);
