Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Sat, 16 Jul 2022 23:07:21 -0500 | From | Bjorn Andersson <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] remoteproc: core: check state in rproc_boot |
| |
On Thu 19 May 01:41 CDT 2022, Peng Fan (OSS) wrote:
> From: Peng Fan <peng.fan@nxp.com> > > If remote processor has already been in RUNNING or ATTACHED > state, report it. Not just increment the power counter and return > success. > > Without this patch, if m7 is in RUNNING state, and start it again, > nothing output to console. > If wanna to stop the m7, we need write twice 'stop'. > > This patch is to improve that the 2nd start would show some useful > info. > > Signed-off-by: Peng Fan <peng.fan@nxp.com> > --- > > Not sure to keep power counter or not. >
I did discuss this with Mathieu, whom argued in favor of keeping the refcount mechanism.
I can see that there could be a scenario where multiple user-space components keep the remotproc running while they are, and if there is any such user this ABI change would be a breakage.
That said, it's more than once that I accidentally have bumped the refcount and then assumed that a single stop would tear down the remoteproc...
> drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c | 6 ++++++ > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c > index 02a04ab34a23..f37e0758c096 100644 > --- a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c > +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c > @@ -2005,6 +2005,12 @@ int rproc_boot(struct rproc *rproc) > goto unlock_mutex; > } > > + if (rproc->state == RPROC_RUNNING || rproc->state == RPROC_ATTACHED) {
If we were to do this would it make sense to boot it out of anything but RPROC_OFFLINE?
Regards, Bjorn
> + ret = -EINVAL; > + dev_err(dev, "%s already booted\n", rproc->name); > + goto unlock_mutex; > + } > + > /* skip the boot or attach process if rproc is already powered up */ > if (atomic_inc_return(&rproc->power) > 1) { > ret = 0; > -- > 2.25.1 >
|  |