On 5/20/25 00:06, Beleswar Prasad Padhi wrote:
> Hi Mathieu,
>
> On 19/05/25 20:07, Mathieu Poirier wrote:
>> On Sat, May 17, 2025 at 06:53:29PM +0530, Beleswar Prasad Padhi wrote:
>>> On 5/16/2025 9:15 PM, Mathieu Poirier wrote:
>>>> On Tue, May 13, 2025 at 11:14:38AM +0530, Beleswar Padhi wrote:
>>>>> The rproc_detach() function invokes __rproc_detach() before
>>>>> rproc_unprepare_device(). The __rproc_detach() function sets the
>>>>> rproc->state to "RPROC_DETACHED".
>>>>>
>>>>> However, the TI K3 M4 driver erroneously looks for "RPROC_ATTACHED"
>>>>> state in its .unprepare ops to identify IPC-only mode; which leads to
>>>>> resetting the rproc in detach routine.
>>>>>
>>>>> Therefore, correct the IPC-only mode detection logic to look for
>>>>> "RPROC_DETACHED" in k3_m4_rproc_unprepare() function.
>>>>>
>>>> This driver has been upstream for 9 whole months, it is hard for me to believe
>>>> this but was just noticed. Martyn from Collabora should be CC'ed on this, and I
>>>> will also need the required R-b/T-b tags.
>>>
>>> Cc: Martyn Welch martyn.welch@collabora.com
>>>
>>> Requesting Andrew/Judith for review and test too.
>>>
>>>> Typically bug fixes are not part of refactoring exercises.
>>>
>>> Typically, yes. But the refactor depends on this fix. This
>>> k3_m4_rproc_unprepare() function is entirely refactored to common driver in
>>> [PATCH v12 26/36].
>>>
>>> So, If the refactor is picked without this patch fix, the mainline M4 driver
>>> would be fixed, but the older stable kernels would always have this bug. Let
>>> me know what you think.
>>>
>> I suggest you send this patch on its own and then the series (without this
>> patch) with a note in the cover letter that it depends on the fix. That way we
>> get the best of both worlds.
>
>
> Sure. If I get any comments/reviews on this version, I will re-spin this patch separately than the series.
>
> Thanks,
> Beleswar
>
Reviewed-by: Hari Nagalla <hnagalla@ti.com>
>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Beleswar
>>>
>>>> I suggest to apply
>>>> this set without this patch - you can then work on fixing this bug.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Mathieu
>>>>
>>>>> Fixes: ebcf9008a895 ("remoteproc: k3-m4: Add a remoteproc driver for M4F subsystem")
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Beleswar Padhi <b-padhi@ti.com>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> v12: Changelog:
>>>>> 1. New patch. Fixup a state detection logic.
>>>>>
>>>>> drivers/remoteproc/ti_k3_m4_remoteproc.c | 2 +-
>>>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/ti_k3_m4_remoteproc.c b/drivers/remoteproc/ti_k3_m4_remoteproc.c
>>>>> index a16fb165fcedd..6cd50b16a8e82 100644
>>>>> --- a/drivers/remoteproc/ti_k3_m4_remoteproc.c
>>>>> +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/ti_k3_m4_remoteproc.c
>>>>> @@ -228,7 +228,7 @@ static int k3_m4_rproc_unprepare(struct rproc *rproc)
>>>>> int ret;
>>>>> /* If the core is going to be detached do not assert the module reset */
>>>>> - if (rproc->state == RPROC_ATTACHED)
>>>>> + if (rproc->state == RPROC_DETACHED)
>>>>> return 0;
>>>>> ret = kproc->ti_sci->ops.dev_ops.put_device(kproc->ti_sci,
>>>>> --
>>>>> 2.34.1
>>>>>