On Wed, Apr 09, 2025 at 02:46:10PM +0800, Peng Fan wrote:
>On Tue, Apr 08, 2025 at 10:59:58AM -0600, Mathieu Poirier wrote:
>>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.
It almost one month passed, I am not sure what status now.
I have patches for i.MX95 that are pending at my local.
I will wait for one more month until 6.16 merge window close, then
post new patches. If any concern, please raise.
Regards,
Peng
>
>ok, I am fine with this.
>
>when get reverted, I need use another method to fix the issue.
>
>I posted two approaches[1], but not get you reply. Since Bjorn raised
>his concern on 1st approach, I think I need to use the 2nd approach without
>touching the core code.
>pasted here,
>"The 2nd approach is to clear rproc->table_sz and rproc->table_ptr in
>imx_rproc_parse_fw before rproc_elf_load_rsc_table.
>"
>
>Or a V3 of current patch with updated commit log.
>
>Please suggest.
>
>If you still have concern or things still not clear to you, please
>let me know.
>
>[1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250402014355.GA22575@nxa18884-linux/
>
>Regards,
>Peng
>
>>
>>> If no, I suppose this thread is done and I will start my other work
>>> regarding rproc.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Peng
>>>
>>> >
>>> >Thanks,
>>> >Peng
>>> >
>>> >>
>>> >>Regards,
>>> >>Bjorn
>>> >>
>>> >
>>
