Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <53a38a24cca0b6f1c2a3120f14dfc865@codeaurora.org>
References: <20200730095350.13925-1-stanimir.varbanov@linaro.org>
 <20200730095350.13925-3-stanimir.varbanov@linaro.org> <159718256557.1360974.458611240360821676@swboyd.mtv.corp.google.com>
 <8c1fdf2d0807f07ec57b232497b405f1@codeaurora.org> <CAE-0n53T-RoOvR=s9nHiXAriMgKvBfDqfBfoGKX5Ju5YF3Tcqw@mail.gmail.com>
 <53a38a24cca0b6f1c2a3120f14dfc865@codeaurora.org>
From:   Stephen Boyd <swboyd@chromium.org>
User-Agent: alot/0.9.1
Date:   Thu, 16 Sep 2021 23:18:46 -0700
Message-ID: <CAE-0n51Pxs7stTdJ5AO3i+Xm=q1R_EUcueR2+_-gFAa7iqUypg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 2/3] venus: Add a debugfs file for SSR trigger
To:     dikshita@codeaurora.org
Cc:     Stanimir Varbanov <stanimir.varbanov@linaro.org>,
        linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-media@vger.kernel.org, jim.cromie@gmail.com,
        Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>, Jason Baron <jbaron@akamai.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        linux-media-owner@vger.kernel.org,
        Akinobu Mita <akinobu.mita@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

Quoting dikshita@codeaurora.org (2021-09-15 23:29:36)
> On 2021-09-16 01:09, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> > Quoting dikshita@codeaurora.org (2021-09-15 02:13:09)
> >>
> >> So, IMO, we will have to use custom debugfs only.
> >
> > Can you use DECLARE_FAULT_ATTR()? Or you need it to be active instead
> > of
> > passive, i.e. it shouldn't wait for should_fail() to return true, but
> > actively trigger something on the remoteproc?
> >
>
> yes, it doesn't need to wait for should_fail() to return true.
> the client/user should be able to trigger this subsystem restart(SSR) at
> any point of time
> when a session is running. It's totally client-driven.
>
> >>
> >> Please feel free to correct me in case my understanding of the
> >> framework
> >> is wrong.
> >>
> >
> > I presume the fault injection framework could get a new feature that
> > lets the fault be injected immediately upon writing the debugfs file.
> > My goal is to consolidate this sort of logic into one place and then
> > put
> > it behind some config option that distros can disable so the kernel
> > isn't bloated with debug features that end users will never care about.

So you can modify fault injection framework to support direct injection
instead of statistical failures?