Hi, On Thu, Sep 24, 2026 at 01:34:09PM -0700, Tanmay Shah wrote: > On AMD-Xilinx platforms cortex-A and cortex-R can be configured as > separate subsystems. In this case, both cores can boot independent of > each other. This is platform management firmware configuration to manage
I'm not sure to understand what the above sentence adds to the changelog. I suggest either reworking or removing. > cores. In such a configuration, if Linux went through an uncontrolled > reboot during active rpmsg communication, then during next boot it can > find rpmsg virtio status not in the reset state. In such case it is > important to reset the virtio status during attach callback and wait > for the remote to handle virtio device reset. After reset, the remote > is expected to generate the notification to the host or the host will > eventually timeout and continue the normal boot flow. > > Assisted-by: LLM > Signed-off-by: Tanmay Shah <[email protected]> > --- > drivers/remoteproc/xlnx_r5_remoteproc.c | 74 +++++++++++++++++++++++++ > 1 file changed, 74 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/xlnx_r5_remoteproc.c > b/drivers/remoteproc/xlnx_r5_remoteproc.c > index 630621288430..6e7e2a5ea83c 100644 > --- a/drivers/remoteproc/xlnx_r5_remoteproc.c > +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/xlnx_r5_remoteproc.c > @@ -6,6 +6,7 @@ > > #include <linux/dma-mapping.h> > #include <linux/firmware/xlnx-zynqmp.h> > +#include <linux/jiffies.h> > #include <linux/kernel.h> > #include <linux/mailbox_client.h> > #include <linux/mailbox/zynqmp-ipi-message.h> > @@ -15,6 +16,7 @@ > #include <linux/of_reserved_mem.h> > #include <linux/platform_device.h> > #include <linux/remoteproc.h> > +#include <linux/wait.h> > > #include "remoteproc_internal.h" > > @@ -33,6 +35,8 @@ > #define RSC_TBL_XLNX_MAGIC ((uint32_t)'x' << 24 | (uint32_t)'a' << 16 | \ > (uint32_t)'m' << 8 | (uint32_t)'p') > > +#define RPROC_ATTACH_TIMEOUT_US (1000 * 1000) > + Please see if you can use a kernel defined time constant instead of minting your own. > /* > * settings for RPU cluster mode which > * reflects possible values of xlnx,cluster-mode dt-property > @@ -167,6 +171,9 @@ struct xlnx_rproc_crash_report { > * @rsc_tbl_size: resource table size retrieved from remote > * @pm_domain_id: RPU CPU power domain id > * @ipi: pointer to mailbox information > + * @attach_wq: wait queue for attach-time vdev reset acknowledgment I don't understand the explanation for @attach_wq - please rework. > + * @waiting_for_attach_ack: whether attach is waiting for remote interrupt > + * @attach_ack: remote interrupt observed while attach wait is active > */ > struct zynqmp_r5_core { > struct xlnx_rproc_crash_report *crash_report; > @@ -181,6 +188,9 @@ struct zynqmp_r5_core { > u32 rsc_tbl_size; > u32 pm_domain_id; > struct mbox_info *ipi; > + wait_queue_head_t attach_wq; > + bool waiting_for_attach_ack; > + bool attach_ack; > }; > > /** > @@ -270,10 +280,17 @@ static void handle_event_notified(struct work_struct > *work) > static void zynqmp_r5_mb_rx_cb(struct mbox_client *cl, void *msg) > { > struct zynqmp_ipi_message *ipi_msg, *buf_msg; > + struct zynqmp_r5_core *r5_core; > struct mbox_info *ipi; > size_t len; > > ipi = container_of(cl, struct mbox_info, mbox_cl); > + r5_core = ipi->r5_core; Is there really a chance that ipi->r5_core be NULL? > + > + if (r5_core && READ_ONCE(r5_core->waiting_for_attach_ack)) { > + WRITE_ONCE(r5_core->attach_ack, true); Why use READ_ONCE/WRITE_ONCE here - what does it give you? > + wake_up(&r5_core->attach_wq); > + } If @rsc->status has been set to 0 in zynqmp_r5_attach() and an IPI is received before ->kick(), the core may erroneously think the remote processor is acknowleging the reset. > > /* copy data from ipi buffer to r5_core if IPI is buffered. */ > ipi_msg = (struct zynqmp_ipi_message *)msg; > @@ -820,6 +837,62 @@ static int zynqmp_r5_get_rsc_table_va(struct > zynqmp_r5_core *r5_core) > > static int zynqmp_r5_attach(struct rproc *rproc) > { > + struct zynqmp_r5_core *r5_core = rproc->priv; > + struct device *dev = &rproc->dev; > + bool wait_for_remote = false; > + struct fw_rsc_vdev *rsc; > + struct fw_rsc_hdr *hdr; > + int i, offset, avail; > + long time_left; > + > + if (!rproc->table_ptr) > + goto attach_success; > + > + for (i = 0; i < rproc->table_ptr->num; i++) { > + offset = rproc->table_ptr->offset[i]; > + hdr = (void *)rproc->table_ptr + offset; > + avail = rproc->table_sz - offset - sizeof(*hdr); > + rsc = (void *)hdr + sizeof(*hdr); > + > + /* make sure table isn't truncated */ > + if (avail < 0) { > + dev_err(dev, "rsc table is truncated\n"); > + return -EINVAL; > + } > + > + if (hdr->type != RSC_VDEV) > + continue; > + > + /* > + * reset vdev status, in case previous run didn't leave it in > + * a clean state. > + */ > + if (rsc->status) { > + rsc->status = 0; > + wait_for_remote = true; > + break; > + } > + } > + > + if (wait_for_remote) { > + WRITE_ONCE(r5_core->attach_ack, false); > + WRITE_ONCE(r5_core->waiting_for_attach_ack, true); > + } Again, I would like to understand the motivation behind using WRITE_ONCE() here... I just don't see what kind of re-ordering issue you need to guard against. > + > + /* kick remote to notify about attach */ > + rproc->ops->kick(rproc, 0); Will older FW be able to deal with this properly? > + > + if (wait_for_remote) { > + time_left = wait_event_timeout(r5_core->attach_wq, > + READ_ONCE(r5_core->attach_ack), > + > usecs_to_jiffies(RPROC_ATTACH_TIMEOUT_US)); The condition where the driver is removed or the remoteproc shut down needs also needs to be handled as a break out condition. Thanks, Mathieu > + WRITE_ONCE(r5_core->waiting_for_attach_ack, false); > + > + if (!time_left) > + dev_warn(dev, "timeout waiting for remote vdev reset > ack\n"); > + } > + > +attach_success: > dev_dbg(&rproc->dev, "rproc %d attached\n", rproc->index); > > return 0; > @@ -920,6 +993,7 @@ static struct zynqmp_r5_core > *zynqmp_r5_alloc_rproc_core(struct device *cdev) > r5_core = r5_rproc->priv; > r5_core->dev = cdev; > r5_core->np = dev_of_node(cdev); > + init_waitqueue_head(&r5_core->attach_wq); > if (!r5_core->np) { > dev_err(cdev, "can't get device node for r5 core\n"); > ret = -EINVAL; > > base-commit: 5f639b3018c0026a5341949724b4b921cf3a3d5d > -- > 2.43.0 >
