Re: [PATCH 0/3] remoteproc: xlnx: remote crash recovery

[Tanmay Shah]

On 11/11/25 1:12 AM, Peng Fan wrote:
> Hi Mathieu, Tanmay
>
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] remoteproc: xlnx: remote crash recovery
> ....
> > >
> >
> > So what is happening here - Peng, do you plan on providing more
> > debugging information? Tanmay - are you planning on sending a
> > second revision?
>
> Sorry for delay.  I gave a hack with below changes(at end) and it works.
> The below change is just hack code to let me verify the rproc->power value.
> The issue with current patchset is that after rproc_attach(),
> the rproc->power will be 0. So recovery only works for the 1st time,
> when it is triggered again, rproc_detach() will abort early in the if check:
> if (!atomic_dec_and_test(&rproc->power)) {
> ret = 0;
> return ret;
> }
>
> ---------------
> diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c
> index a92c6cd6df67b..2b69304084d11 100644
> --- a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c
> +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c
> @@ -1786,7 +1786,9 @@ static int rproc_attach_recovery(struct rproc *rproc)
>          if (ret)
>                  return ret;
>   
> -       return rproc_attach(rproc);
> +       ret = rproc_attach(rproc);
> +       atomic_set(&rproc->power, 1);
> +       return ret;
>   }
>
> Thanks,
> Peng.

Hi Peng,

This issue should be fixed after using rproc_boot instead of 
rproc_attach. rproc_boot makes sure that rproc_attach is atomic 
operation and it also increases power count as you mentioned above.

Thanks,
Tanmay

> > > Thanks,
> > > Peng
> > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > Tanmay
> > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > Peng