Re: [PATCH 2/2] remoteproc: core: Prevent sleep when rproc crashes

[Siddharth Gupta]

Hey Mathieu,
I will be sending a revised patchset soon. Will try to address your 
comments there.

Thanks,
Siddharth

On 2/24/2020 10:53 AM, Mathieu Poirier wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 06:11:53PM -0800, Siddharth Gupta wrote:
> > Remoteproc recovery should be fast and any delay will have an impact on the
> > user-experience. Use power management APIs (pm_stay_awake and pm_relax) to
> > ensure that the system does not go to sleep.
> When you say "ensure the system does not go to sleep", you're referring to the
> system going idle from the CPUidle subsystem?
>
> > Signed-off-by: Siddharth Gupta <sidgup@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >   drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c | 4 ++++
> >   1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c
> > index 5ab65a4..52e318c 100644
> > --- a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c
> > +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c
> > @@ -1712,6 +1712,8 @@ static void rproc_crash_handler_work(struct work_struct *work)
> >   
> >   	if (!rproc->recovery_disabled)
> >   		rproc_trigger_recovery(rproc);
> > +
> > +	pm_relax(&rproc->dev);
> >   }
> >   
> >   /**
> > @@ -2242,6 +2244,8 @@ void rproc_report_crash(struct rproc *rproc, enum rproc_crash_type type)
> >   		return;
> >   	}
> >   
> > +	pm_stay_awake(&rproc->dev);
> > +
> I fail to understand how this can be useful since there is no HW associted to
> rproc->dev...  Is it possible for you to elaborate more on the problem you're
> trying to fix?
>
> Thanks,
> Mathieu
>
> >   	dev_err(&rproc->dev, "crash detected in %s: type %s\n",
> >   		rproc->name, rproc_crash_to_string(type));
> >   
> > --
> > Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum,
> > a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project