lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2023]   [Oct]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH] remoteproc: k3-r5: Wait for core0 power-up before powering up core1
From
Hi Mathieu,

On 11/09/23 22:15, Mathieu Poirier wrote:
> Hi Apurva,
>
> On Wed, Sep 06, 2023 at 06:17:56PM +0530, Apurva Nandan wrote:
>> 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, else the kernel is seen hanging during rproc
>> loading.
>>
>> Make the powering up of cores sequential, by waiting for the current core
>> to power-up before proceeding to the next core, with a timeout of 2sec.
>> Add a wait queue event in k3_r5_cluster_rproc_init call, that will wait
>> for the current core to be released from reset before proceeding with the
>> next core.
>>
>> Fixes: 6dedbd1d5443 ("remoteproc: k3-r5: Add a remoteproc driver for R5F subsystem")
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Apurva Nandan <a-nandan@ti.com>
>> ---
>>
>> kpv report: https://gist.githubusercontent.com/apurvanandan1997/feb3b304121c265b7827be43752b7ae8/raw
>>
>> drivers/remoteproc/ti_k3_r5_remoteproc.c | 23 +++++++++++++++++++++++
>> 1 file changed, 23 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/ti_k3_r5_remoteproc.c b/drivers/remoteproc/ti_k3_r5_remoteproc.c
>> index ad3415a3851b..ba5e503f7c9c 100644
>> --- a/drivers/remoteproc/ti_k3_r5_remoteproc.c
>> +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/ti_k3_r5_remoteproc.c
>> @@ -103,12 +103,14 @@ struct k3_r5_soc_data {
>> * @dev: cached device pointer
>> * @mode: Mode to configure the Cluster - Split or LockStep
>> * @cores: list of R5 cores within the cluster
>> + * @core_transition: wait queue to sync core state changes
>> * @soc_data: SoC-specific feature data for a R5FSS
>> */
>> struct k3_r5_cluster {
>> struct device *dev;
>> enum cluster_mode mode;
>> struct list_head cores;
>> + wait_queue_head_t core_transition;
>> const struct k3_r5_soc_data *soc_data;
>> };
>>
>> @@ -128,6 +130,7 @@ struct k3_r5_cluster {
>> * @atcm_enable: flag to control ATCM enablement
>> * @btcm_enable: flag to control BTCM enablement
>> * @loczrama: flag to dictate which TCM is at device address 0x0
>> + * @released_from_reset: flag to signal when core is out of reset
>> */
>> struct k3_r5_core {
>> struct list_head elem;
>> @@ -144,6 +147,7 @@ struct k3_r5_core {
>> u32 atcm_enable;
>> u32 btcm_enable;
>> u32 loczrama;
>> + bool released_from_reset;
>> };
>>
>> /**
>> @@ -460,6 +464,8 @@ static int k3_r5_rproc_prepare(struct rproc *rproc)
>> ret);
>> return ret;
>> }
>> + core->released_from_reset = true;
>> + wake_up_interruptible(&cluster->core_transition);
>>
>> /*
>> * Newer IP revisions like on J7200 SoCs support h/w auto-initialization
>> @@ -1140,6 +1146,7 @@ static int k3_r5_rproc_configure_mode(struct k3_r5_rproc *kproc)
>> return ret;
>> }
>>
>> + core->released_from_reset = c_state;
>> ret = ti_sci_proc_get_status(core->tsp, &boot_vec, &cfg, &ctrl,
>> &stat);
>> if (ret < 0) {
>> @@ -1280,6 +1287,21 @@ static int k3_r5_cluster_rproc_init(struct platform_device *pdev)
>> cluster->mode == CLUSTER_MODE_SINGLECPU ||
>> cluster->mode == CLUSTER_MODE_SINGLECORE)
>> break;
>> +
>> + /* R5 cores require to be powered on sequentially, core0
>> + * should be in higher power state than core1 in a cluster
>> + * So, wait for current core to power up before proceeding
>> + * to next core and put timeout of 2sec for each core.
>> + */
> Wrong multi-line comment format.
Okay will fix this.
>> + ret = wait_event_interruptible_timeout(cluster->core_transition,
>> + core->released_from_reset,
>> + msecs_to_jiffies(2000));
>> + if (ret <= 0) {
>> + dev_err(dev,
>> + "Timed out waiting for %s core to power up!\n",
>> + rproc->name);
>> + return ret;
>> + }
> From my perspective, this is needed because rproc_auto_boot_callback() for core1
> can be called before core0 due to thread execution order. Am I correct?
Yes
> If so please add this explanation to the comment you have above. Also, let's
> say a user decides to switch both cores off after reboot. At that time, what
> prevents a user from switching on core1 before core0 via sysfs?
Okay, will add the explanation.
Currently, adding support for graceful shutdown is in progress. As of
now in order
to stop/start core or change firmware, we recommend users to restart the
OS.
> Thanks,
> Mathieu
>
>> }
>>
>> return 0;
>> @@ -1709,6 +1731,7 @@ static int k3_r5_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>> cluster->dev = dev;
>> cluster->soc_data = data;
>> INIT_LIST_HEAD(&cluster->cores);
>> + init_waitqueue_head(&cluster->core_transition);
>>
>> ret = of_property_read_u32(np, "ti,cluster-mode", &cluster->mode);
>> if (ret < 0 && ret != -EINVAL) {
>> --
>> 2.34.1
>>

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2023-10-04 15:52    [W:0.048 / U:2.236 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site