Add device awake calls in case of rproc boot and rproc shutdown path. Currently, device awake call is only present in the recovery path of remoteproc. If a user stops and starts rproc by using the sysfs interface, then on pm suspension the firmware loading fails. Keep the device awake in such a case just like it is done for the recovery path.
Fixes: a781e5aa59110 ("remoteproc: core: Prevent system suspend during remoteproc recovery") Signed-off-by: Souradeep Chowdhury quic_schowdhu@quicinc.com Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org --- Changes in v3
*Add the stability mailing list in commit message
drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c | 6 +++++- 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c index c2cf0d277729..908a7b8f6c7e 100644 --- a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c @@ -1916,7 +1916,8 @@ int rproc_boot(struct rproc *rproc) pr_err("invalid rproc handle\n"); return -EINVAL; } - + + pm_stay_awake(rproc->dev.parent); dev = &rproc->dev;
ret = mutex_lock_interruptible(&rproc->lock); @@ -1961,6 +1962,7 @@ int rproc_boot(struct rproc *rproc) atomic_dec(&rproc->power); unlock_mutex: mutex_unlock(&rproc->lock); + pm_relax(rproc->dev.parent); return ret; } EXPORT_SYMBOL(rproc_boot); @@ -1991,6 +1993,7 @@ int rproc_shutdown(struct rproc *rproc) struct device *dev = &rproc->dev; int ret = 0;
+ pm_stay_awake(rproc->dev.parent); ret = mutex_lock_interruptible(&rproc->lock); if (ret) { dev_err(dev, "can't lock rproc %s: %d\n", rproc->name, ret); @@ -2027,6 +2030,7 @@ int rproc_shutdown(struct rproc *rproc) rproc->table_ptr = NULL; out: mutex_unlock(&rproc->lock); + pm_relax(rproc->dev.parent); return ret; } EXPORT_SYMBOL(rproc_shutdown);
On Mon, Mar 17, 2025 at 05:10:57PM +0530, Souradeep Chowdhury wrote:
Add device awake calls in case of rproc boot and rproc shutdown path. Currently, device awake call is only present in the recovery path of remoteproc. If a user stops and starts rproc by using the sysfs interface, then on pm suspension the firmware loading fails. Keep the device awake in such a case just like it is done for the recovery path.
Please rewrite this in the form expressed in https://docs.kernel.org/process/submitting-patches.html#describe-your-change...
Clearly describe the problem you're solving - not just the change in behavior.
What do you mean that "firmware loading fails" if we hit a suspend during stop and start through sysfs? At what point does it fail?
Fixes: a781e5aa59110 ("remoteproc: core: Prevent system suspend during remoteproc recovery")
That patch clearly states that it intends to keep the system from suspending during recovery. As far as I can tell you're changing the start and stop sequences.
As such, I don't think the referred to patch was broken and you're not fixing it.
Signed-off-by: Souradeep Chowdhury quic_schowdhu@quicinc.com Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
It's not clear to me from the commit message why this should be backported to stable kernel.
Changes in v3
*Add the stability mailing list in commit message drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c | 6 +++++- 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c index c2cf0d277729..908a7b8f6c7e 100644 --- a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c @@ -1916,7 +1916,8 @@ int rproc_boot(struct rproc *rproc) pr_err("invalid rproc handle\n"); return -EINVAL; }
You're replacing an empty line with a tab...
Other than that, the change looks sensible.
Regards, Bjorn
- pm_stay_awake(rproc->dev.parent); dev = &rproc->dev;
ret = mutex_lock_interruptible(&rproc->lock); @@ -1961,6 +1962,7 @@ int rproc_boot(struct rproc *rproc) atomic_dec(&rproc->power); unlock_mutex: mutex_unlock(&rproc->lock);
- pm_relax(rproc->dev.parent); return ret;
} EXPORT_SYMBOL(rproc_boot); @@ -1991,6 +1993,7 @@ int rproc_shutdown(struct rproc *rproc) struct device *dev = &rproc->dev; int ret = 0;
- pm_stay_awake(rproc->dev.parent); ret = mutex_lock_interruptible(&rproc->lock); if (ret) { dev_err(dev, "can't lock rproc %s: %d\n", rproc->name, ret);
@@ -2027,6 +2030,7 @@ int rproc_shutdown(struct rproc *rproc) rproc->table_ptr = NULL; out: mutex_unlock(&rproc->lock);
- pm_relax(rproc->dev.parent); return ret;
} EXPORT_SYMBOL(rproc_shutdown); -- 2.34.1
On 3/22/2025 3:51 AM, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
On Mon, Mar 17, 2025 at 05:10:57PM +0530, Souradeep Chowdhury wrote:
Add device awake calls in case of rproc boot and rproc shutdown path. Currently, device awake call is only present in the recovery path of remoteproc. If a user stops and starts rproc by using the sysfs interface, then on pm suspension the firmware loading fails. Keep the device awake in such a case just like it is done for the recovery path.
Please rewrite this in the form expressed in https://docs.kernel.org/process/submitting-patches.html#describe-your-change...
Clearly describe the problem you're solving - not just the change in behavior.
What do you mean that "firmware loading fails" if we hit a suspend during stop and start through sysfs? At what point does it fail?
Ack. It fails under the request_firmware call made in adsp_load under drivers/remoteproc/qcom_q6v5_pas.c
Fixes: a781e5aa59110 ("remoteproc: core: Prevent system suspend during remoteproc recovery")
That patch clearly states that it intends to keep the system from suspending during recovery. As far as I can tell you're changing the start and stop sequences.
As such, I don't think the referred to patch was broken and you're not fixing it.
Ack
Signed-off-by: Souradeep Chowdhury quic_schowdhu@quicinc.com Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
It's not clear to me from the commit message why this should be backported to stable kernel.
Ack. Will remove stability from mailing list.
Changes in v3
*Add the stability mailing list in commit message drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c | 6 +++++- 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c index c2cf0d277729..908a7b8f6c7e 100644 --- a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c @@ -1916,7 +1916,8 @@ int rproc_boot(struct rproc *rproc) pr_err("invalid rproc handle\n"); return -EINVAL; }
You're replacing an empty line with a tab...
Ack
Other than that, the change looks sensible.
Regards, Bjorn
- pm_stay_awake(rproc->dev.parent); dev = &rproc->dev;
ret = mutex_lock_interruptible(&rproc->lock); @@ -1961,6 +1962,7 @@ int rproc_boot(struct rproc *rproc) atomic_dec(&rproc->power); unlock_mutex: mutex_unlock(&rproc->lock);
- pm_relax(rproc->dev.parent); return ret; } EXPORT_SYMBOL(rproc_boot);
@@ -1991,6 +1993,7 @@ int rproc_shutdown(struct rproc *rproc) struct device *dev = &rproc->dev; int ret = 0;
- pm_stay_awake(rproc->dev.parent); ret = mutex_lock_interruptible(&rproc->lock); if (ret) { dev_err(dev, "can't lock rproc %s: %d\n", rproc->name, ret);
@@ -2027,6 +2030,7 @@ int rproc_shutdown(struct rproc *rproc) rproc->table_ptr = NULL; out: mutex_unlock(&rproc->lock);
- pm_relax(rproc->dev.parent); return ret; } EXPORT_SYMBOL(rproc_shutdown);
-- 2.34.1
linux-stable-mirror@lists.linaro.org
-
Bjorn Andersson -
Souradeep Chowdhury