On Tue, 8 Apr 2025 at 09:02, Peng Fan <peng....@oss.nxp.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Apr 03, 2025 at 10:32:39PM +0800, Peng Fan wrote:
> >Hi Bjorn,
> >
> >
> >Thanks for replying this thread.
> >
> >On Wed, Apr 02, 2025 at 08:48:58AM -0500, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
> >>On Wed, Apr 02, 2025 at 09:43:55AM +0800, Peng Fan wrote:
> >>> On Tue, Apr 01, 2025 at 10:05:03AM -0600, Mathieu Poirier wrote:
> >>> >On Tue, Apr 01, 2025 at 09:41:24AM +0800, Peng Fan wrote:
> >>...
> >>> >
> >>> >The core is already checking if @loaded_table is valid in rproc_start(),
> >>> >why
> >>> >can't that be used instead of adding yet another check?
> >>>
> >>> Ah. I was thinking clear table_sz in rpoc_shutdown is an easy approach and
> >>> could benifit others in case other platforms meet similar issue in future.
> >>>
> >>
> >>I like the general idea of keeping things clean and avoid leaving stale
> >>data behind.
> >>
> >>But clearing table_sz during stop in order to hide the fact that the
> >>future table_ptr will contain valid data that shouldn't be used, that's
> >>just a bug waiting to show up again in the future.
> >
> >Agree.
> >
> >Do you need me to post a fix for
> >commit efdde3d73ab25ce("remoteproc: core: Clear table_sz when
> >rproc_shutdown")
> >by clearing table_sz in rproc_fw_boot and rproc_detach as did in this v2?
> >
> >To i.MX, the above in-tree patch is ok, so all it fine, and this v2 patch
> >could be dropped.
> >
> >But anyway, if you prefer a follow up fix, please let me know, I
> >could post a patch.
>
> Hi Bjorn, Mathieu,
>
> I will wait for one more week to see if any concerns or questions.
> Please raise if you have.
>
I am working with Bjorn to get your patch reverted. Once that has
happened you can send another patch.
> If no, I suppose this thread is done and I will start my other work
> regarding rproc.
>
> Thanks,
> Peng
>
> >
> >Thanks,
> >Peng
> >
> >>
> >>Regards,
> >>Bjorn
> >>
> >
