Re: [PATCH] reset: use a shared SRCU domain for reset controls

[Steven Price]

On 23/04/2026 15:15, Philipp Zabel wrote:
> Hi Steven, Heiko,
> 
> On Do, 2026-04-23 at 13:45 +0100, Steven Price wrote:
>> +Heiko for the Rockchip questions.
>>
>> On 23/04/2026 11:27, Philipp Zabel wrote:
>>> Hi Steven,
>>>
>>> On Fr, 2026-04-17 at 16:48 +0100, Steven Price wrote:
>>>> Commit 78ebbff6d1a0 ("reset: handle removing supplier before consumers")
>>>> added a dynamically initialized srcu_struct to every reset_control and
>>>> cleaned it up again when the handle was dropped.
>>>>
>>>> That breaks early boot users which acquire and release reset handles
>>>> before workqueues are online. On rk3288 this shows up during
>>>> rockchip_smp_prepare_cpus(), where pmu_set_power_domain() gets a reset
>>>> control for a CPU core and then drops it again before SMP bring-up has
>>>> finished.
>>>
>>> Can the reset_control_put() call be dropped from pmu_set_power_domain()
>>> to fix the problem?
>>
>> I'm not that familiar with the code, so I'm not sure.
>>
>> Just dropping that call causes a WARN_ON() bringing the secondary CPUs
>> on (because the call to rockchip_get_core_reset() expects to have
>> exclusive access to the reset).
> 
> Yes, caused by re-requesting the same reset again. I was thinking of
> storing the controls in an array in rockchip_smp_prepare_cpus() and
> reusing them in pmu_set_power_domain(), see the patch below.
> 
>> Switching to a shared reset then his a
>> WARN_ON() in reset_control_assert because deassert_count == 0. I could
>> keep digging blindly but I'm not really sure how this code is meant to work.
> 
> Shared reset is not the right mechanism here, that would be for
> multiple drivers/devices sharing the same reset line.

That makes sense - I hadn't really looked into whether this was a single
reset for all CPUs or somehow one shared between them all. Thinking
about it more I can't see how a shared reset would have worked ;)

>> Hopefully Heiko might be able to shed some more light on this?
>>
>>> Putting the reset control should mean that the driver doesn't care
>>> about the state of the reset line anymore, but the platsmp code very
>>> much expects the reset line to stay deasserted after enabling a CPU.
>>> Acquiring reset controls in rockchip_smp_prepare_cpus() once and never
>>> giving them up via reset_control_put() seems like a correct fix,
>>> regardless of whether this patch is applied or not.
>>>
>>> It looks like the meson platsmp suffers from the same issue.
>>
>> This is why I did the fix in the reset code -
> 
> And I'm grateful, because that made sashiko.dev point out an ABBA
> deadlock opportunity in the existing code.

Cool.

>> how many other platforms
>> might have similar issues? But obviously if these platforms are buggy
>> then they should be fixed.
> 
> Agreed.
> 
>> My interest is keeping the devboard working so I can keep testing
>> Panfrost on it.
> 
> Does this patch work?

Indeed it does - thanks. Feel free to add my T-b when posting:

Tested-by: Steven Price <steven.price@xxxxxxx>

Thanks,
Steve

> 
> ----------8<----------
> From: Philipp Zabel <p.zabel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [PATCH] ARM: rockchip: keep reset control around
> 
> Do not put the reset control, retain exclusive control over it.
> After turning on a CPU, the corresponding reset line must stay
> deasserted.
> 
> This also avoids calling reset_control_put() before workqueues
> are operational.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Philipp Zabel <p.zabel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>  arch/arm/mach-rockchip/platsmp.c | 15 +++++++++------
>  1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-rockchip/platsmp.c b/arch/arm/mach-rockchip/platsmp.c
> index f432d22bfed8..c28816fffce8 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/mach-rockchip/platsmp.c
> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-rockchip/platsmp.c
> @@ -34,6 +34,7 @@ static int ncores;
>  
>  static struct regmap *pmu;
>  static int has_pmu = true;
> +static struct reset_control *cpu_rstc[4];
>  
>  static int pmu_power_domain_is_on(int pd)
>  {
> @@ -64,9 +65,11 @@ static struct reset_control *rockchip_get_core_reset(int cpu)
>  static int pmu_set_power_domain(int pd, bool on)
>  {
>  	u32 val = (on) ? 0 : BIT(pd);
> -	struct reset_control *rstc = rockchip_get_core_reset(pd);
> +	struct reset_control *rstc;
>  	int ret;
>  
> +	rstc = pd < ARRAY_SIZE(cpu_rstc) ? cpu_rstc[pd] : ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
> +
>  	if (IS_ERR(rstc) && read_cpuid_part() != ARM_CPU_PART_CORTEX_A9) {
>  		pr_err("%s: could not get reset control for core %d\n",
>  		       __func__, pd);
> @@ -100,11 +103,8 @@ static int pmu_set_power_domain(int pd, bool on)
>  		}
>  	}
>  
> -	if (!IS_ERR(rstc)) {
> -		if (on)
> -			reset_control_deassert(rstc);
> -		reset_control_put(rstc);
> -	}
> +	if (!IS_ERR(rstc) && on)
> +		reset_control_deassert(rstc);
>  
>  	return 0;
>  }
> @@ -312,6 +312,9 @@ static void __init rockchip_smp_prepare_cpus(unsigned int max_cpus)
>  		ncores = ((l2ctlr >> 24) & 0x3) + 1;
>  	}
>  
> +	for (i = 0; i < ncores; i++)
> +		cpu_rstc[i] = rockchip_get_core_reset(i);
> +
>  	/* Make sure that all cores except the first are really off */
>  	for (i = 1; i < ncores; i++)
>  		pmu_set_power_domain(0 + i, false);