Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <1662712413-38233-1-git-send-email-quic_aiquny@quicinc.com>
 <20220909192357.GA319190@p14s> <128dc161-8949-1146-bf8b-310aa33c06a8@quicinc.com>
In-Reply-To: <128dc161-8949-1146-bf8b-310aa33c06a8@quicinc.com>
From:   Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@linaro.org>
Date:   Fri, 16 Sep 2022 11:05:48 -0600
Message-ID: <CANLsYkx0fEyezax_bk50ORGb7vPY3sBegKJcfAmmu366MrQkYw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] remoteproc: core: do pm relax when not first crash
To:     "Aiqun(Maria) Yu" <quic_aiquny@quicinc.com>
Cc:     linux-remoteproc@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, quic_clew@quicinc.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, 13 Sept 2022 at 05:03, Aiqun(Maria) Yu <quic_aiquny@quicinc.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Mathieu,
>
> pm_awake and pm_relax needed to be used as a pair. There is chance that
> pm_relax is not being called, and make the device always in cannot
> suspend state.
>
> On 9/10/2022 3:23 AM, Mathieu Poirier wrote:
> > Hi Maria,
> >
> > On Fri, Sep 09, 2022 at 04:33:33PM +0800, Maria Yu wrote:
> >> Even if it is not first crash, need to relax the pm
> >> wakelock otherwise the device will stay awake.
> >>
> >
> > The goal is exactly to keep the device awake...
> >
> >> Signed-off-by: Maria Yu <quic_aiquny@quicinc.com>
> >> ---
> >>   drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c | 1 +
> >>   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c
> >> index e5279ed9a8d7..30078043e939 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c
> >> @@ -1956,6 +1956,7 @@ static void rproc_crash_handler_work(struct work_struct *work)
> >>      if (rproc->state == RPROC_CRASHED || rproc->state == RPROC_OFFLINE) {
> >>              /* handle only the first crash detected */
> >>              mutex_unlock(&rproc->lock);
> >> +            pm_relax(rproc->dev.parent);
> >
> > If we are here it means that rproc_crash_handler_work() has already been called
> > _and_ that a recovery is in process.  When the first crash handler completes
> > pm_relax() will be called and the device will go to sleep as expected.
> If the rproc->state cannot be changed to running state, the device will
> always be awake from this return.
> Also APROC_OFFLINE state can be given in other path like an shutdown
> request is issued.
>
> While this patch is not considering carefully as well, I think I need to
> upload a new patchset with an ordered workqueue to make each work have
> each pm_relax before return.
> what do you think?

I was travelling this week and as such did not have the time to
follow-up with this thread, something I will do next week.

>
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Mathieu
> >
> >>              return;
> >>      }
> >>
> >> --
> >> 2.7.4
> >>
>
>
> --
> Thx and BRs,
> Aiqun(Maria) Yu