On Tue, 16 Jun 2026 at 13:52, Shah, Tanmay <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> Please find my comments below:
>
> On 6/16/2026 11:01 AM, Mathieu Poirier wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 10, 2026 at 11:27:11AM -0700, Tanmay Shah wrote:
> >> Remote processor will report the crash reason via the resource table
> >> and notify the host via mailbox notification. The host checks this
> >> crash reason on every mailbox notification from the remote and report
> >> to the rproc core framework. Then the rproc core framework will start
> >> the recovery process.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Tanmay Shah <[email protected]>
> >> ---
> >>
> >> changes in v5
> >> - use local variable to access crash report pointer
> >> - End crash report string with '\0' without relying on fw
> >>
> >> drivers/remoteproc/xlnx_r5_remoteproc.c | 73 ++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> >> 1 file changed, 72 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/xlnx_r5_remoteproc.c
> >> b/drivers/remoteproc/xlnx_r5_remoteproc.c
> >> index 3349d1877751..86afff9f3b40 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/remoteproc/xlnx_r5_remoteproc.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/xlnx_r5_remoteproc.c
> >> @@ -112,6 +112,10 @@ struct rsc_tbl_data {
> >> const uintptr_t rsc_tbl;
> >> } __packed;
> >>
> >> +enum xlnx_rproc_fw_rsc {
> >> + XLNX_RPROC_FW_CRASH_REASON = RSC_VENDOR_START,
> >
> > I would call this XLNX_RPROC_FW_CRASH_REPORT
> >
>
> Ack.
>
> >> +};
> >> +
> >> /*
> >> * Hardcoded TCM bank values. This will stay in driver to maintain
> >> backward
> >> * compatibility with device-tree that does not have TCM information.
> >> @@ -131,9 +135,27 @@ static const struct mem_bank_data
> >> zynqmp_tcm_banks_lockstep[] = {
> >> {0xffe30000UL, 0x30000, 0x10000UL, PD_R5_1_BTCM, "btcm1"},
> >> };
> >>
> >> +#define CRASH_REASON_STR_LEN 16
> >> +
> >> +/**
> >> + * struct xlnx_rproc_crash_report - resource to know crash status and
> >> reason
> >> + *
> >> + * @version: version of this resource
> >> + * @crash_state: if true, the rproc is notifying crash, time to recover
> >> + * @crash_reason: number to describe reason of crash
> >> + * @crash_reason_str: short string description of crash reason
> >> + */
> >> +struct xlnx_rproc_crash_report {
> >> + u8 version;
> >> + u8 crash_state;
> >> + u8 crash_reason;
> >
> > Do you need 2 variables? Would it be possible for @crash_reason != 0 to
> > indicate a crash, making @cash_state irrelevant?
> >
>
> Actually initially I had defined crash_reason only, but when I looked at
> how crash reason/type is defined in the kernel, I got idea to keep
> crash_state separate than crash_reason:
>
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/remoteproc/linux.git/tree/include/linux/remoteproc.h?h=for-next#n183
>
> enum rproc_crash_type {
> RPROC_MMUFAULT,
> RPROC_WATCHDOG,
> RPROC_FATAL_ERROR,
> };
>
> So, if crash_reason is defined like above, then it's easy to make
> mistake and not define no_crash = 0. Different firmware projects can
> treat crash_reason differently. I would like to keep crash_state and
> crash_reason separate and not impose policy on firmware projects on how
> to define crash_reason.
>
Thanks for the explanation. I'll think about that a little longer.
> >> + char crash_reason_str[CRASH_REASON_STR_LEN];
> >> +} __packed;
> >> +
> >> /**
> >> * struct zynqmp_r5_core - remoteproc core's internal data
> >> *
> >> + * @crash_report: rproc crash state and reason
> >> * @rsc_tbl_va: resource table virtual address
> >> * @sram: Array of sram memories assigned to this core
> >> * @num_sram: number of sram for this core
> >> @@ -147,6 +169,7 @@ static const struct mem_bank_data
> >> zynqmp_tcm_banks_lockstep[] = {
> >> * @ipi: pointer to mailbox information
> >> */
> >> struct zynqmp_r5_core {
> >> + struct xlnx_rproc_crash_report *crash_report;
> >> void __iomem *rsc_tbl_va;
> >> struct zynqmp_sram_bank *sram;
> >> int num_sram;
> >> @@ -204,11 +227,27 @@ static int event_notified_idr_cb(int id, void *ptr,
> >> void *data)
> >> */
> >> static void handle_event_notified(struct work_struct *work)
> >> {
> >> + struct xlnx_rproc_crash_report *report;
> >> + struct zynqmp_r5_core *r5_core;
> >> struct mbox_info *ipi;
> >> struct rproc *rproc;
> >>
> >> ipi = container_of(work, struct mbox_info, mbox_work);
> >> rproc = ipi->r5_core->rproc;
> >> + r5_core = ipi->r5_core;
> >> + report = r5_core->crash_report;
> >> +
> >> + /* report crash only if expected */
> >> + if (report && report->crash_state) {
> >> + if (rproc->state == RPROC_ATTACHED || rproc->state ==
> >> RPROC_RUNNING) {
> >> + report->crash_reason_str[CRASH_REASON_STR_LEN - 1] =
> >> '\0';
> >> + dev_warn(&rproc->dev, "crash reason id: %d %s\n",
> >> + report->crash_reason,
> >> report->crash_reason_str);
> >> + rproc_report_crash(rproc, RPROC_FATAL_ERROR);
> >> + report->crash_state = false;
> >> + return;
> >> + }
> >> + }
> >>
> >> /*
> >> * We only use IPI for interrupt. The RPU firmware side may or may
> >> @@ -448,6 +487,13 @@ static int zynqmp_r5_rproc_stop(struct rproc *rproc)
> >> if (ret)
> >> dev_err(r5_core->dev, "core force power down failed\n");
> >>
> >> + /*
> >> + * Clear attach on recovery flag during stop operation. The next state
> >> + * of the remote processor is expected to be "Running" state. In this
> >> + * state boot recovery method must take place over attach on recovery.
> >> + */
> >> + test_and_clear_bit(RPROC_FEAT_ATTACH_ON_RECOVERY, rproc->features);
> >
> > Why is there a need to play set/clear the RPROC_FEAT_ATTACH_ON_RECOVERY flag
> > here and in zynqmp_r5_attach() and zynqmp_r5_detach()? I think we talked
> > about
> > that before but can't remember the outcome of that conversation.
> >
>
> The remote processor can go through following life cycle:
>
> attach() -> stop() -> start(). When this happens, ATTACH_ON_RECOVERY is
> not valid anymore. At this point, it should be BOOT_RECOVERY which is
> indicated by clearing ATTACH_RECOVERY flag. That is why it is important
> to clear this bit on stop().
>
Here too I'd like to review the current state machine. I'll get back
to you shortly.
> Now in detach() it is not needed. I am just clearing the flag as part of
> a cleanup sequence.
>
> >> +
> >> return ret;
> >> }
> >>
> >> @@ -869,6 +915,9 @@ static int zynqmp_r5_get_rsc_table_va(struct
> >> zynqmp_r5_core *r5_core)
> >>
> >> static int zynqmp_r5_attach(struct rproc *rproc)
> >> {
> >> + /* Enable attach on recovery method. Clear it during rproc stop. */
> >> + rproc_set_feature(rproc, RPROC_FEAT_ATTACH_ON_RECOVERY);
> >> +
> >> dev_dbg(&rproc->dev, "rproc %d attached\n", rproc->index);
> >>
> >> return 0;
> >> @@ -883,9 +932,30 @@ static int zynqmp_r5_detach(struct rproc *rproc)
> >> */
> >> zynqmp_r5_rproc_kick(rproc, 0);
> >>
> >> + clear_bit(RPROC_FEAT_ATTACH_ON_RECOVERY, rproc->features);
> >> +
> >> return 0;
> >> }
> >>
> >> +static int zynqmp_r5_handle_rsc(struct rproc *rproc, u32 rsc_type, void
> >> *rsc,
> >> + int offset, int avail)
> >> +{
> >> + struct zynqmp_r5_core *r5_core = rproc->priv;
> >> + void *rsc_offset = (r5_core->rsc_tbl_va + offset);
> >> +
> >
> > if (rsc_type != XLNX_RPROC_FW_CRASH_REASON)
> > return RSC_IGNORED;
> >
>
> Ack.
>
> >> + if (rsc_type == XLNX_RPROC_FW_CRASH_REASON) {
> >> + r5_core->crash_report = rsc_offset;
> >> + /* reset all values */
> >> + r5_core->crash_report->crash_state = false;
> >> + r5_core->crash_report->crash_reason = 0;
> >> + r5_core->crash_report->crash_reason_str[0] = '\0';
> >> + } else {
> >> + return RSC_IGNORED;
> >> + }
> >> +
> >> + return RSC_HANDLED;
> >> +}
> >> +
> >> static const struct rproc_ops zynqmp_r5_rproc_ops = {
> >> .prepare = zynqmp_r5_rproc_prepare,
> >> .unprepare = zynqmp_r5_rproc_unprepare,
> >> @@ -900,6 +970,7 @@ static const struct rproc_ops zynqmp_r5_rproc_ops = {
> >> .get_loaded_rsc_table = zynqmp_r5_get_loaded_rsc_table,
> >> .attach = zynqmp_r5_attach,
> >> .detach = zynqmp_r5_detach,
> >> + .handle_rsc = zynqmp_r5_handle_rsc,
> >> };
> >>
> >> /**
> >> @@ -939,7 +1010,7 @@ static struct zynqmp_r5_core
> >> *zynqmp_r5_alloc_rproc_core(struct device *cdev)
> >>
> >> rproc_coredump_set_elf_info(r5_rproc, ELFCLASS32, EM_ARM);
> >>
> >> - r5_rproc->recovery_disabled = true;
> >> + r5_rproc->recovery_disabled = false;
> >
> > I'm good with the overall architecture of this set.
> >
>
> Okay. If above comments looks good, I will send v6 soon.
>
> > Regards,
> > Mathieu
> >
> >> r5_rproc->has_iommu = false;
> >> r5_rproc->auto_boot = false;
> >>
> >> --
> >> 2.34.1
> >>
>
