On Tue, Sep 17, 2024 at 06:56:58PM +0200, Arnaud POULIQUEN wrote: > Hello Mathieu, > > On 9/12/24 17:26, Mathieu Poirier wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 30, 2024 at 11:51:44AM +0200, Arnaud Pouliquen wrote: > >> Add support for releasing remote processor firmware through > >> the Trusted Execution Environment (TEE) interface. > >> > >> The tee_rproc_release_fw() function is called in the following cases: > >> > >> - An error occurs in rproc_start() between the loading of the segments and > >> the start of the remote processor. > >> - When rproc_release_fw is called on error or after stopping the remote > >> processor. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Arnaud Pouliquen <arnaud.pouliq...@foss.st.com> > >> --- > >> drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c | 10 ++++++++-- > >> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > >> > >> diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c > >> b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c > >> index 7694817f25d4..32052dedc149 100644 > >> --- a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c > >> +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c > >> @@ -29,6 +29,7 @@ > >> #include <linux/debugfs.h> > >> #include <linux/rculist.h> > >> #include <linux/remoteproc.h> > >> +#include <linux/remoteproc_tee.h> > >> #include <linux/iommu.h> > >> #include <linux/idr.h> > >> #include <linux/elf.h> > >> @@ -1258,6 +1259,9 @@ static int rproc_alloc_registered_carveouts(struct > >> rproc *rproc) > >> > >> static void rproc_release_fw(struct rproc *rproc) > >> { > >> + if (rproc->state == RPROC_OFFLINE && rproc->tee_interface) > >> + tee_rproc_release_fw(rproc); > > > > Function tee_rproc_release_fw() returns a value that is ignored. I don't > > know > > how it passes the Sparse checker but I already see patches coming in my > > Inbox to > > deal with that. In this case there is nothing else to do if there is an > > error > > releasing the firware. As such I would put a (void) in front and add a > > comment > > about the return value being ignore on purpose. > > Instead of ignoring the error, I wonder if we should panic in > tee_rproc_release_fw(). Indeed, we would be in an unexpected state without any > possible action to return to a normal state.
Nowadays a call to panic() is only used in very dire situations and I don't see this meeting that requirement. I would just call a dev_err() and let it be. > > Regards, > Arnaud > > > > >> + > >> /* Free the copy of the resource table */ > >> kfree(rproc->cached_table); > >> rproc->cached_table = NULL; > >> @@ -1348,7 +1352,7 @@ static int rproc_start(struct rproc *rproc, const > >> struct firmware *fw) > >> if (ret) { > >> dev_err(dev, "failed to prepare subdevices for %s: %d\n", > >> rproc->name, ret); > >> - goto reset_table_ptr; > >> + goto release_fw; > >> } > >> > >> /* power up the remote processor */ > >> @@ -1376,7 +1380,9 @@ static int rproc_start(struct rproc *rproc, const > >> struct firmware *fw) > >> rproc->ops->stop(rproc); > >> unprepare_subdevices: > >> rproc_unprepare_subdevices(rproc); > >> -reset_table_ptr: > >> +release_fw: > >> + if (rproc->tee_interface) > >> + tee_rproc_release_fw(rproc); > > > > Same here. > > > >> rproc->table_ptr = rproc->cached_table; > >> > >> return ret; > >> -- > >> 2.25.1 > >>